Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the five private Bills.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Unreported Crime

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of unreported crime; and if he will publish the results of any recent such surveys.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The British crime survey, published on 25 February, gives a fuller indication than has previously been available of the extent of certain types of crime in this country and of public attitudes towards them.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the British crime survey, which was published after the question was tabled, is exceedingly helpful in assessing trends? Does my right hon. Friend have any intention of repeating such a survey, at an interval of his choice, so that there will be opportunities to compare the figures and to gain a better insight into trends?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, it is important that we do so. The survey has revealed some interesting findings, which should be followed up and which could guide us in our attitude towards crime.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the most striking features of the British crime survey is

the stated desire of the victims of crime that offenders make reparation rather than be subjected to more punitive punishments? Will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to encourage the former and to diminish the latter?

Mr. Whitelaw: No one can suggest that this Government have not done a great deal to encourage the former. The community service orders were introduced by a previous Conservative Government, and have been much increased by this Government.

Police Work (School Visits)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage chief constables to run schemes for visits to schools by police officers on request, to talk to pupils about the work of the police.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Forces throughout England and Wales already operate schemes for police officers to visit schools on a regular basis to talk to pupils about the work of the police. Chief officers know that they have my right hon. Friend's full support in all their efforts to make contact with young people.

Mr. Dormand: Not all local education authorities are convinced about such a scheme. Does the Minister agree that this type of scheme has considerable merit? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make an assessment of all the schemes that have been introduced to disseminate what he considers to be good practice to the police forces? In view of the increase in vandalism, is it not important that we explore every possible avenue to reduce vandalism—for example, by police visiting schools?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt about the merits of these schemes. Virtually all forces are involved with schools either through special liaison officers or local beat officers. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said about the possibility of our assessing how various schemes are working and giving advice.

Mr. Hannam: In view of the sharp increase in drug-taking in schools, and in conjunction with the scheme, will my hon. and learned Friend ask chief constables to pay attention to the provision of information about the dangers of experimentation in drugs?

Mr. Waddington: I hope that chief constables do. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Public Prosecutions Service (Committee)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the committee on the public prosecutions service to report.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The working party on prosecution arrangements expects to report in the summer.

Mr. Lyon: As there is cross-party support for this proposition, and as it was recommended by the Royal Commission, would it not be better for it to be implemented in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill instead of giving extra powers to the police that are outside any degree of control until the reform is made?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think so, as the hon. Gentleman knows from our deliberations in Committee. It is important to get this right. My right hon. Friend has appointed the working party. He has taken three interim steps to pave the way, including guidelines from the Attorney-General. This is an important matter that we need to get right.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister accept that it would help to assuage some of the real fears about the new powers being given to the police if there were an independent Crown prosecutor service as suggested by the Royal Commission? Will he bring forward such proposals at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is right to some extent, but we cannot have everything as soon as we want it. We need to get it right. We shall have it as soon as we possibly can, but it is important that, when we get it, it is as right as it can be.

Police—Press Relations

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Press Council report on press handling of the Sutcliffe case, he has any plans to give guidance to police forces concerning relations with the news media during and after the investigation of a serious crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 29 December 1982 my Department issued circulars of guidance to chief officers of police on the investigation of a series of major crimes and on the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Copies of these two circulars were placed in the Library. The circular on the 1981 Act took full account of the relations between the police and the media during and after the investigations in the Sutcliffe case. I see no need to issue further guidance on this matter in the light of the Press Council's report.

Mr. McNally: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any further thoughts that he may have had on the Press Council's strong recommendation about people under pressure and harassment from the press and the help that the police can give in such circumstances? Will he make it clear to owners and editors of newspapers that, despite their hiding behind the claim of freedom of the press, the House is determined to uphold a more important freedom—that of a fair trial?

Mr. Whitelaw: The importance of a fair trial cannot be overstressed. That has been a major feature in all the guidance that we have given. As for giving guidance to editors, that is something that they must take on board for themselves. Some editors would not take any pleasure in receiving guidance from me, considering what some of them think about me.

Mr. Foulkes: In the light of what the Home Secretary has said about the importance of a fair trial, will he comment on the press coverage of the case of Mr. David Nilson, allegedly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a separate question, and in any case the matter is sub judice.

Mr. McQuarrie: My question also related to Mr. Nilson, so I shall not now ask it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the reign of the so-called Yorkshire Ripper reduced the

quality of life in Yorkshire for five years? Does he further accept that people did not want to walk the streets alone or open their doors? Was not the much-criticised early press conference given by the chief constable of west Yorkshire perhaps given against the background of trying to alleviate the tremendous distress of people in Yorkshire at having such a criminal at large?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no doubt that there were particular problems in that case. Many people will have learnt a good many lessons about the handling of that case—including the press, the police and everyone else. I regret that I am no great expert on the quality of life in Yorkshire or anywhere else.

Offensive Weapons

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the definition of offensive weapons.

Mr. Mayhew: We are not aware of any recent representations specifically about the definition of "offensive weapon" contained in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

Mr. Race: In view of the widespread concern in many communities about the new stop and search powers of the police, does the Minister agree that it is about time that there was a change in the definition of "offensive weapon" to exclude such everyday items as coins and bunches of keys? Is he aware that many people believe that the police will use that very wide definition of "offensive weapon" to stop people whom they do not like?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that that is true. The definition has been on the statute book for almost 30 years. It has not caused any significant difficulties. The powers of stop and search are dependent on reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that any unusual item found on a burglar or housebreaker who is caught could well be described as an offensive weapon?

Mr. Mayhew: That depends upon the circumstances. The definition broadly states that any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, having on him in a public place any offensive weapon, is guilty of an offence. An offensive weapon is defined as
any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him".

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would it not be correct to define a cruise missile as an offensive weapon? Has the Home Secretary received the letter that I sent to him yesterday from one of the fine, courageous women at Greenham Common, drawing attention to the violence being practised by the police against women at that site?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman and the women to whom he referred should reflect on how fortunate they are to live in a country, protected as it is, in which they can send such letters.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree—

Mr. Cryer: The Minister does not mind people being beaten by the police; is that it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) must not shout in that way while another hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the skean-dhu, which is worn by many Scots, could be described as an offensive weapon? Is it not true that under the present stop and search regulations the police apply their wisdom and recognise that individuals wearing the kilt and the skean-dhu are not carrying an offensive weapon to be used in an offensive way?

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am equally sure that I would be extremely unwise to venture further on that matter.

Charities (Administration Schemes)

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has given effect to schemes for the administration of charities.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Three times.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the allegations that I have referred to his right hon. Friend about internal matters in the RSPCA now relate to large sums of money and make many damaging remarks about the individuals concerned? If his Department and the Charity Commission refuse to intervene, and my constituents Dr. and Mrs. House now face expulsion from the society for trying to act internally, will not much damage be done to the RSPCA if it is to remain a credible body on animal welfare matters?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the aim of the 1960 Act was to keep politicians out of the affairs of charities. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no responsibility for the affairs of individual charities. The Charity Commission has no power to intervene in the administrative affairs of charities, including internal policy disputes such as appears, unfortunately, to be taking place within the RSPCA.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the chief charity commissioner has endeavoured to play a constructive role in the dispute between the charity and the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and said as much in his letter of 21 January to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Christopher Price: If the aim of the 1960 Act is to keep politics out of charities, why is the Charity Commission pursuing the Exclusive Brethren and picking on a religious charity in that way? Would it not be better for the Government to come forward with comprehensive legislation so that distasteful charities, such as the Moonies and Eton college, may be separated from decent charities, which might then have an opportunity to get relief from value added tax?

Mr. Mellor: Most of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially that of the Exclusive Brethren, are the province of the chief charity commissioner, not me. In asking for fresh legislation the hon. Gentleman is looking further into the future than I would care to do.

Victims of Crime (Compensation)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims of crime he

estimates will be excluded from compensation in the next year as a result of his change in the rules of eligibility; and what are the reasons for the change.

Mr. Mayhew: We are providing some £29 million this year for compensation awards to the victims of violent crime. The increase in the lower limit to £400 is intended to keep the cost of compensation in future years within the provision made in the Government's expenditure plans. It is uncertain how many applicants who would have been eligible for small awards will be excluded in the next year, but the number may be between 3,000 and 4,000.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How does the Minister reconcile that mean and niggardly act with the Home Secretary's statement on 23 March last year to the annual general meeting of the National Association of Victim Support Schemes that the Government want to do everything possible to support the victims of crime? Is it not blatant hypocrisy for the Government to pretend to want to help victims of crime while reducing the number who will be eligible for financial compensation?

Mr. Mayhew: I reject that entirely. Since the Labour Government were removed we have extended the scheme to the victims of violence within the family, enabled the board to reopen cases where there has been a serious change in medical condition, provided a higher limit than previously on the rate of lost earnings and allowed funeral expenses to be taken into account. My right hon. Friend recently announced that a new bereavement award of a fixed sum of £3,500 would be introduced. That is what the Government have done in practice.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that at the moment the courts seem to be more interested in those who have committed offences than in those who have had offences committed against them? Is not the level of compensation totally inadequate—here I support uniquely the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)—particularly in respect of those who have crimes of violence committed against them? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider this matter again and uprate the amount of compensation available to those who have had crimes of violence committed against them?

Mr. Mayhew: A question about the amount of compensation is slightly different from the one that I was asked. My hon. Friend will recall that in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 much greater power is given to the courts to make the offender pay compensation to the victim in respect of the harm that has been done to him. It is important that that should be emphasised.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that there is a gross imbalance when for every £1 that is spent on offenders only 1p is spent on victims? Is there not a need to develop more victim support schemes to complement those already in existence?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that it is very much better to take practical measures, such as those in the Criminal Justice Act, than to enter into calculations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in his question.

Broadcasting Act 1981

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has


exercised his powers under section 29(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 relating to Government control over the broadcasting of certain matter.

Mr. Whitelaw: None, Sir.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no effective way at present of securing balance and fairness in the media and that serious misrepresentations, such as constant recent incorrect references to unilateral disarmament, go uncorrected despite regular complaints? If letters to the director general do not have any effect, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only effective way of securing balance and fairness is by instituting an explicit right of reply? Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an explicit right of reply, subject, of course, to the judgment of an adjudicating body?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. The arrangements that we have made, through the governors of the BBC and through the IBA board, to deal with problems of balance and fairness have worked better than arrangements in any other country in the world.

Sir Dudley Smith: Quite apart from using his full powers, will my right hon. Friend consider writing to Central Television about its programme this week on nuclear warfare and disarmament, which was wholly biased and one-sided?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is naturally a matter for the IBA to consider. When I hear complaints coming from one side of the problem and then from the other, I think that it is better that we should distance the House from such complaints.

Mr. Hattersley: I know that the Home Secretary is anxious to maintain the visible impartiality of the BBC, but will he help that process by assuring the Opposition that they will be consulted before he appoints a new chairman?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the principle has always been that Home Office Ministers will not interfere with the independence of the BBC, will the Home Secretary publish somewhere the number of times that members of the Government have been in touch with the director general to persuade him to take a different line on matters of political controversy?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. Nor will I seek to publish, even if I had the information, the number of times that members of previous Governments have done the same thing.

Criminal Damage (Conviction Statistics)

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by the police recently in improving the rate of those charged and convicted of criminal damage; and what proportion of those liable to charge are subsequently found to be below the age of criminal responsibility.

Mr. Mayhew: Over the past five years the clear-up rate for offences of criminal damage valued over £20 has remained at about 30 per cent. Between 1977 and 1981 the number of persons convicted of or cautioned for criminal damage rose from 50,000 to 60,000.
The information requested about those below the age of criminal responsibility is not collected centrally.

Mr. Latham: In view of public concern about the relatively poor success rate in clearing up this mindless and senseless vandalism, will my hon. and learned Friend see whether more can be done to improve those figures and, above all, to emphasise the responsibility of the family for these matters? That would be a good idea for discussion by the Cabinet's family policy group.

Mr. Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend about the worrying nature of the problem of the very young offender. Naturally, it is extremely important that the clear-up rate should be improved. Perhaps at the forefront of the steps that could be taken to improve the problem is for parents to take more responsibility for the actions of their children, and certainly more responsibility for the standards according to which they are brought up.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many young people who are convicted for offences of criminal damage are in fact persistent truants? Does he further agree that there is scope here for our right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to initiate a thorough review to establish whether there is a link between persistent truancy and teenage crime?

Mr. Mayhew: I quite understand my hon. Friend's point. It is generally accepted that the conditions that give rise to truancy also give rise to the likelihood that a child will commit offences of this type. In other words, there is a link in that regard. It has yet to be established whether there is a link in other respects.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister institute an inquiry to find out how many of these young people have had two or more sentences, and will he take into account their family life, especially if they are out of work? Does he agree that young people often end up in prison because they have too much time on their hands? Will the Government do something about finding them jobs, which would remove that aspect in the creation of young criminals?

Mr. Mayhew: I have already agreed about family circumstances. It is important that we should take note of recent research prepared by Professor Stern, who is professor of economics at the University of Warwick. Using data for England and Wales between 1970 and 1981, he found no evidence that increases in unemployment have resulted in increased levels of recorded crime. The author has some trenchant criticism of those who have reported otherwise.

Prison Service (Morale)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking to improve morale in the prison service.

Mr. Mellor: We are significantly increasing staffing and expenditure levels to enable the service to carry out its tasks. In order to improve conditions for staff and inmates, we are implementing the largest prison building programme this century.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the sheer pressure of numbers and the lack of adequate facilities


adds to the problem, particularly for those working in the prison service? Evidence of that can be found at Portsmouth, Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways, among others. Will the Minister take positive action by ensuring in general terms that we commit to prison only those who constitute a real danger to society?

Mr. Mellor: Who goes to prison and who does not must be a matter for the courts.
We are committed to building approximately two prisons a year over the next few years, against a background of only three prisons having been built during the 1970s. We are spending twice as much in real terms on repairs and maintenance as was spent by the Labour Government. It is impossible to reverse overnight the neglect of previous Administrations.

Dr. Summerskill: As the Government's new Criminal Justice Act does not contain any measure which would lead to a significant and permanent reduction in the prison population, when will the Home Secretary use one of the two powers that he does have—one for the early release of prisoners, and the other to reduce the time spent in prison before becoming eligible for parole?

Mr. Mellor: It has been made clear by the Lord Chief Justice that prison sentences should be awarded only when unavoidable. With regard to the other matters, the hon. Lady knows that no decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a most important prison at Winchester which is grossly overcrowded? Does he further accept that while many people in Winchester wish to see tough treatment meted out and believe that prison should not be an easy ride, boredom and overcrowding can reach the point of inhumane treatment?
Will he urge his right hon. Friend not only to consider spending larger amounts on construction, thereby reducing overcrowding, but to institute measures to alleviate boredom in a constructive way? With the falling price of integrated circuits in microcomputers, should not the use of microcomputers in prisons for prisoner education be looked at? That would not only alleviate boredom but equip the prisoners for rehabilitation.

Mr. Mellor: The matter has been looked at. We are concerned about providing education and employment within prisons. The prison service has a good record of providing useful work for about 12,000 inmates a day in our prisons.

Crimes of Violence (Wales)

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in the number of crimes of violence to the person in Wales between the years 1972 and 1981.

Mr. Mayhew: Between 1972 and 1981 the average annual increase in all offences of violence against the person recorded in Wales was about 7 per cent. a year; for the more serious offences it was about 2 per cent. a year.

Mr. Williams: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that it was extremely insensitive of his Department to announce last weekend that the elderly were less likely to suffer an attack on their person than any other people in society? Does he agree that that shows complacency towards their real fears rather than the concern that the Government should show?

Mr. Mayhew: I did not, nor did the Department, make that announcement. The Department published the crime survey. Expressed in a shorthand way in my hon. Friend's question, that was one of the findings of the crime survey.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the most important thing is to try to prevent such crimes taking place? One of the factors that has contributed to crime in Wales has been the increase in unemployment over that period. Does he accept that we should seek an eradication of the cause rather than go after the criminals once the crimes have taken place?

Mr. Mayhew: I am happy to enjoy the rare experience of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the point that we must try to stop those crimes taking place. With regard to his second point, I hope that he will read the answer that I gave a few moments ago about the research findings and note the absence of any link between unemployment and crime.

Suicides

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the form in which suicides are reported in the coroners' statistics to indicate whether the persons were employed or unemployed.

Mr. Mellor: No, Sir. The coroners' statistics record the number and type of verdicts returned at coroners' inquests. The fact of whether or not the deceased person was employed or unemployed forms no part of the verdict.

Mr. Allaun: It should be part of the verdict. Will the Minister reconsider his reply? Has he read the recent report of a young worker with a wife and baby who hanged himself, according to the coroner, because he had been out of work for nine months? Does he realise the growing number of tragedies resulting from the spread of unemployment?

Mr. Mellor: There is no reason to link unemployment with suicide. I should have thought that it would not be seemly to have party disputations on why people commit suicide. There is no reason why that information should be given by coroners any more than a whole range of other information that might have a bearing on individual cases, each of which depends on its own facts and unfortunate circumstances.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Minister agree that the statistics produced by coroners' courts, and many other aspects of the coroners' procedures, are not satisfactory? May I thank him for receiving a recent delegation from "Inquest" to discuss those matters? Does he agree that the information resulting from coroners' inquests and what coroners record ought to be reviewed so that we can have more information?

Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows from that meeting and other occasions, we are concerned with aspects of the coroners' jurisdiction, some of which are undoubtedly ripe for legislative change. We are actively pursuing that.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Nationality Application Forms

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make nationality application forms available in post offices.

Mr. Waddington: No, Sir. Application forms are available from the Home Office nationality division in Croydon where advice can be given on the appropriate form for individual applicants.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not about time that we had a fresh look at the issuing of such forms? Surely the general public should be encouraged to go to post offices to obtain the forms and make their claims, thus avoiding long delays. Solicitors receive shabby treatment from the Department when they apply for forms. It is about time that we had a fresh look at the rights of people who make applications.

Mr. Waddington: It is very important that the applicants should be told which of the number of avenues to citizenship is open to them. Not everyone is qualified to give that advice. If one were to leave at post offices the whole range of forms—excellent as they are, as a result of the Rayner exercise—those behind the counter would find it difficult to give advice on what was the right form for the right person. I fear that in the main people would go away with all the forms and would then be no wiser as to which was the appropriate one. Those forms are made available to citizens advice bureaux and other bodies that can give advice to individuals.

Mr. James Lamond: Before the Minister gets too complacent about the matter, will he tell us whether there has been any improvement in the two-year waiting period that many of my constituents have had to put up with until an answer from his Department at Lunar House is received?

Mr. Waddington: There has been a considerable improvement, but there were great difficulties before the new year because many people persuaded themselves, erroneously, that they would be affected by the coming into force of the British Nationality Act.
I was at Lunar House recently and found no queues of people going for advice. That is a real improvement.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the explanatory leaflet issued by the Home Office on the routes for nationality leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of explaining to applicants which route they should take? Does he accept that there is undue delay in processing the application forms? Since applicants pay the full economic cost for the application, does he accept that there is a case for taking on more staff so that the undue delay can be reduced?

Mr. Waddington: I looked at the leaflets when I first came into the Department. I thought that they were rather good, but it is a difficult subject, for the reason that I have mentioned, which is the number of routes to naturalisation or registration as a British citizen. Of course one is anxious to speed up the processing of the applications as much as possible.

Burglaries (Merseyside)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the number of burglaries recorded in Merseyside between 1979 and the latest available date.

Mr. Mayhew: In 1981, 42,000 offences of burglary were recorded in Merseyside, about one third more than in 1979.

Mr. Alton: There has been a massive increase in the number of burglaries, which seem to have reached epidemic proportions, when one home is broken into every 20 minutes every day on Merseyside. How does the Minister account for that massive growth?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that, unfortunately, there has been an increase in recorded crime, particularly burglaries, throughout the country. He also knows that the steps that must be taken to counter crime are multifarious and that the police cannot do it all on their own. The courts cannot do it all on their own. It depends upon the community. The Government are assisting.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In that case, will the Minister commend the scheme introduced on Merseyside that enables burglars to make reparation for their crime by working in and for the community, and at the same time reinforce his welcome initiative on the national crime prevention scheme by allowing low-income householders to reinforce the security in their homes by providing them with subsidies?

Mr. Mayhew: I am very much in favour of the principle of reparation. The Criminal Justice Act assists the courts to make orders providing for that. To make a burglar compensate his victim one has first to catch him. That is why we rightly increased the numbers of police. We are entitled to take credit for the fact that three new attendance centres in Liverpool and the area in the Merseyside police district have been opened under this Government.

Metropolitan Police (Priorities and Problems)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state his conclusions to date on the preliminary report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on priorities and problems facing his force.

Mr. Whitelaw: I refer my hon. Friend to the speech that I made in the House on 28 February.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in Waltham Abbey and other parts of the Epping Forest division falling within the Metropolitan Police district that not enough police are readily available to the public? Will steps be taken quickly to introduce the neighbourhood watch scheme?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The neighbourhood watch schemes, as suggested by the Commissioner, are extremely important. We can assure the citizens of London—that is important—that, to reverse the circumstances that we inherited in 1979, we have managed to increase the number of police officers substantially. The previous Commissioner put 1,000 police officers back on the beat and the present Commissioner proposes to make another 650 available. That is considerable progress in a short time. Much more needs to be done, but it cannot all be done in a day. It would have been much easier if the Opposition had done something about it before.

Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend reached any conclusion about the shambles that has been caused at Hyde Park corner as a result of the Commissioner's action to slow up the free flow of traffic there?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that that action was decided upon by the GLC, not the Commissioner.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary said that circumstances regarding crime and the police have changed since he became Home Secretary. We all confirm that, in that the increase in crime since he became Home Secretary has been enormous. As his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said that that increase had nothing to do with the increase of unemployment, does the Home Secretary have any idea what has caused the increase in crime? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman has based his question on an entirely false premise. That is not what I said. I said that we had done a great deal to reverse the circumstances that were left to us by the Labour Government and that we had done that, first, by putting more policemen on the beat. The right hon. Gentleman has never been able to stand up for that. He persistently says that he wants more policemen on the beat, but the Government in which he served denied that opportunity and the good management of the Metropolitan Police, and ensured that the police went back into panda cars. We have reversed that trend and the right hon. Gentleman had better realise it.

Mr. Hattersley: Can the Home Secretary bring himself to answer my simple statistical question? Is it not a fact that, having been elected on a promise of law and order, the Government have presided over three years of the worst increase in crime in Britain's recent history?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that there has been a considerable increase in crime. Nevertheless, if only the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served had backed the police and not despised its middle management we should have been in a much better position to deal with the problems than we have been. We now have to retrain the middle management and the police and improve the appalling conditions that we inherited.

Television Licence Fee (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce in what way he has been able to remove the anomaly regarding the payment of television licence fees for those persons living in disabled accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on 23 February, he has decided that physically disabled and mentally disordered people in residential homes run by local authorities or voluntary or private organisations, or in certain sheltered housing schemes for the disabled, should benefit from the special 5p television licence, which is already available to retirement pensioners in similar accommodation.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that it was not until my question appeared on the Order Paper today that a planted question from one of his Back-Bench hon. Friends also appeared? Should he not be more anxious to

congratulate the disabled people at Cressy Fields. Alfreston, who refused to pay their television licences last year? Is this not a victory for extra-parliamentary activity.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's belief in the conspiracy theory of life does him no credit. The question to which he refers was tabled and answered properly. I am sorry that he cannot bring himself to welcome a helpful concession that will benefit many people.

Mr. Waller: Does not the history of such a concession show that one has only to introduce concessions to produce anomalies? Would it not be better if such assistance as is given in these concessions were given in cash, as the pensioners' organisations wish?

Mr. Mellor: Overall, what my hon. Friend says is our policy, but we inherited an anomalous set of concessions. I see no reason for denying the concession to the disabled when it is available to elderly people who live in the same type of accommodation. My hon. Friend's argument is right with regard to a further widening of these concessions.

Mr. Allen McKay: Would the Minister care to look at my ten-minute Bill of 26 October 1982, passed by the House by 187 votes to nil? When will he put the will of the House there expressed into practice with regard to concessionary television licences for old people?

Mr. Mellor: I have already made the position clear. I see no reason for not extending the concession to disabled people who live in the same circumstances as the pensioners to whom I referred earlier. However, there seems to be every reason for not imposing further costs on ordinary licence payers by extending the concession more widely, regardless of need.

Extradition Law (Report)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the representations made to him following the publication of the report of the inter-departmental working party on extradition law.

Mr. Mayhew: Comments are still being received. We are considering the responses and will be deciding what action to take on the working party's recommendations.
I should like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all those who have given such detailed consideration to the report and have been willing to give us the benefit of their own knowledge on the issues that have been raised.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is it not a fact that we have only 44 extradition treaties and that most of them are more than 100 years old? Is it not desirable to dispense with the need for a treaty and agree to extradite for all offences that are made extraditable by the laws of both countries?

Mr. Mayhew: That is an important matter, about which my hon. Friend is a great expert. We should be unwise to reach a final conclusion until we have considered all the responses to the working party.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 3 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister understand that the south Wales miners are angry because investment in their coalfield slumped to only £14 million last year? Does she concede that the provocative appointment of Mr. MacGregor appears to be a signal that the coalfield can be mauled and cut back hugely? Is that not why the miners have no confidence in the Government?

The Prime Minister: Precisely where investment is made is a matter for the National Coal Board. "Plan for Coal" has been carried out and extensive investment has been made in the NCB because new pits have a very good future. I have no statement to make about the chairmanship either of the NCB or the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady is backing off.

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the threatened coal strike is both unnecessary and unjustified? Will she take this opportunity to remind the miners that they receive enormous subsidies from the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about farmers?"]—and that taxpayers are entitled to expect that that money will be used sensibly and economically, not to keep uneconomic pits in production?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The pit in question is 120 years old and its losses this year are expected to be about £13,000 per man employed.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the causes of the problem in the coalfield is the great mistrust of Government policy that prevails there, partly because of what has happened in the past few years and partly because of what is projected? Does she appreciate that that is likely to be increased by the latest unemployment figures? Does she see any prospect of a fall in unemployment? Does she not understand that the Government calculate an increase of some 280,000 in the number of unemployed? How many of them will be in south Wales? How many of them will be miners?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman started off on the subject of coal. Following "Plan for Coal", investment in that industry during 1974 to 1978–79 was about £1,500 million. About £3,000 million was invested in coal between 1978 and 1982–83. That shows this Government's faith in the future of coal. Once those excellent pits are in production, there is hope that coal might be produced more cheaply. If that happens, there is hope that electricity costs might be reduced, which would help the many industries that now complain about the cost of electricity.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the actual figure for unemployment is down, but I would be the first to admit that the seasonally adjusted figure is up. As I have said many times, the only way to get more jobs in a world recession—the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the

German figures that were also published today—is to be as competitive both in price and in design as the best of the rest of the world.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady recall the remark that she made on one occasion to the effect that every Conservative Government since the war have left more people in work than when they came to power? Is she still of that opinion? Does she not acknowledge that that proposition is true of every Administration except hers? Can she tell us when there will be a fall in unemployment, particularly as she made that speech in Darlington at a very convenient moment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's figures for unemployment are not quite right. As he knows, and as I noted carefully, during the Labour Government unemployment increased substantially. He will note that a bigger proportion of our population have jobs than in any other country in the EC, with the exception of Denmark.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady come along next week and tell us whether the promise that she made about unemployment in 1979 in Darlington was true or untrue?

The Prime Minister: I would be the first to say that unemployment has increased considerably. It has increased in almost all industrialised countries. The German figures were published today, and to those one must add the number of gastarbeiters, of whom about 500,000 have been sent home. If one compares the records for the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany from 1979 to 1983, one sees that from May 1979 to the latest available figures the increase in unemployment in the Netherlands has been 193 per cent., in the United Kingdom 139 per cent., and in Germany 154 per cent. It is a worldwide problem.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend take time today, not only as Prime Minister but as a London Member of Parliament, to recognise the utter dismay felt by the vast majority of Londoners at the recent to-ings and fro-ings of the leader of the GLC and the way in which the council is using ratepayers' money to give grants to what can only be described politely as extreme, way-out organisations? Does she agree that those actions call into question not only the future of the GLC but the future of the rating system? Can she give any hope to the House that one or the other, or better still both, will be reformed radically or abolished?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the vast majority of Londoners are unhappy about the antics of the Leader of the GLC. I also agree that we need major reform of the rating system. That is being considered and we shall make an announcement in due course. I accept that consideration of rating reform must include an examination of the functions of the several local authorities.

Mrs. Renée Short: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to see the report just released by the British Medical Association—[Interruption.]—What are hon. Members laughing at? The report is the result of an inquiry chaired by Professsor Sir John Stallworthy into the


negative effects of nuclear war. Is the right hon. Lady aware that if one nuclear weapon were exploded over London, more casualties would be created than could be cared for by all the acute beds in the country, of which there are 136,000? Will she examine the report, act upon it and get in touch with President Reagan and Mr. Andropov—[Interruption.]—Tory Members are hooligans. This is a serious matter that affects the lives of all the people of this country and of many other countries. Will the Prime Minister use whatever influence she has with President Reagan and any one else who is prepared to listen to ensure that a meeting can take place to remove the threat of nuclear war from the entire world?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Lady refers in full, but I have seen a summary of it. The purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is to deter the Soviets from making any attack, either nuclear or conventional, on the countries of the Western Alliance. That strategy has been successful for 37 years, and the Soviets are as aware of the dangers of nuclear war as we are. As long as they face a credible nuclear deterrent as part of our defences they will never risk either a conventional or a nuclear attack.
The best possible course is for Mr. Andropov to accept President Reagan's proposals to reduce intermediate nuclear forces to zero, to reduce strategic weapons by one third as a first step and to reduce conventional forces. The initiative has been taken by the entire NATO Alliance and by President Reagan, but the Soviets are not responding.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am asking the right hon. Lady to do it.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister in favour of fixed-term Parliaments? If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: I see no reason to change the present system. The onus is on those who propose any change to prove the case for it.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Livingstone and his Labour colleagues on the GLC have cancelled the Territorial Army banner rededication ceremony that was to take place this month at county hall on the ground that it would offend their friends in the peace movement? Will she take time to consider the grave offence that this has caused to the many thousands of men and women who have participated in maintaining the peace of this country through the Territorial Army for the past 35 years?

The Prime Minister: The Territorial Army is a wonderful service, and I hope that its members will realise that the vast majority of British people are firmly behind them. We believe in a strong defence, which among other things, enables people such as Mr. Livingstone and others to express their views—a freedom that would be denied to them if they lived under the Soviets.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Prime Minister recollect my question to her on 8 February, when I informed her of the reaction of the mining industry to the rumoured appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor? Is the Government's announcement during the past two hours, directly after the decision of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, that great democratic union—[Interruption.]—Yes, that great democratic union, to ballot its members, a deliberate act of provocation on her part to make sure that the miners vote for a strike, which is something she has wanted for many months? Can she tell the House whether Mr. MacGregor has accepted the offer?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman probably heard me say earlier, I have no announcement to make about the future chairmanship of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Lofthouse: It has been on television.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not always believe as gospel what he sees on television. I have no announcement to make about the future chairmanship of the National Coal Board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Siddall's appointment comes to an end, I believe, at the end of July, and he cannot carry on. There is no secret about the fact that Mr. MacGregor is being considered for the chairmanship. There are good reasons why his name should be considered. When he was chairman of AMAX, in his first year — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] — Yes, because I want to be accurate in what I say. When he was chairman of AMAX, Mr. MacGregor took it into coal production, and coal operations expanded by 75 per cent. between 1971 and 1976, making AMAX the third largest producer of bituminous coal in the United States. In 1976, after the worst year for United States mineral consumption since the depression of the 1930s, AMAX, unlike other United States mineral companies—

Mr. Lofthouse: This means that the Prime Minister has appointed him.

The Prime Minister: —embarked on a $2 billion expansion programme. That is the background. I have no announcement to make. May I make it clear that no one has yet been appointed to the job.

Mr. Latham: On a point: of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the convenience of hon. Members? There is serious overcrowding on the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway, which I believe should have your immediate attention.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the Minister of State, Home Office to make a statement retracting his explicit and clear endorsement of police violence towards the women at Greenham Common when replying at Question Time to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of the review by Lord Jellicoe, Cmnd. 8803.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order.
Proceedings on the British Fishing Boats Bill.
TUESDAY 8 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
WEDNESDAY 9 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans, 1983–84 to 1985–86, Cmnd. 8789.
THURSDAY 10 MARCH—Motions on the following Northern Ireland orders: Appropriation, Rates (Amendment) and Licensing (International Airports).
FRIDAY 11 MARCH—Private Member's motions.
MONDAY 14 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Housing and Building Control Bill.

Mr. Foot: May I put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman? I am grateful to him for providing a debate on the public expenditure White Paper for which we asked, but I fear that we are still awaiting a response from the Government on other matters. We have asked constantly for a debate on disarmament, which he has promised, but there seems to be no prospect of it in the near future. The Secretary of State for Defence seems to be setting up a new department in his Ministry each week instead of preparing speeches on this matter. I should have thought that the Leader of the House could have arranged a debate by now.
We should like a debate on the discussions within the Government on what is euphemistically entitled "family policy" to cover social policy generally.
We have asked for a debate on the second Brandt report, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted our request. I hope that he will tell us when it will take place and whether the report will be placed in the Vote Office, as we have requested.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the request I have made on numerous occasions for a debate on the Charter Consolidated and Anderson Strathclyde merger? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is widespread interest in this matter not just in Scotland but throughout the country. We believe that the interference with and overruling of the Monopolies and Mergers Commissiion raises an issue of major importance. There is no possibility of a Supply day being used in the proposed arrangements for next week, but there are some other aspects of business which could easily be postponed. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?
In view of the widespread interest in any appointment to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that any such appointment should be announced in the House, which is the right way to do it as so many questions have been put down. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree immediately to that request.

Mr. Biffen: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions in reverse order.
I can add nothing to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the appointment of the chairman of the National Coal Board, but I accept at once the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the House being informed.
As to the decision on the Anderson Strathclyde bid and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, of course the Government acknowledged at once that there was widespread interest and controversy surrounding the decision not to accept the advice of the Commission. That is why on 22 December 1982 an oral statement was made to the House about the decision, whereas these matters are normally revealed to the House in a written reply. I cannot take the matter beyond what I said last week.
I accept at once that there is widespread interest in the House that the Brandt report should be debated. I am not in a position to say when, but it is a matter that we might take further; and, as a token of my interest in the matter, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office next week.
The range of issues contained within the phrase "family policy" will, of course, be central to the Budget debate.
I accept that we must have a debate on disarmament in the reasonably near future. At the moment, our progress with parliamentary debates is blocked somewhat by the Budget and the debate on the Budget resolutions. I hope that thereafter we can agree a time for the debate. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be much looking forward to the clash of opinion.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his responses to several of those matters. However, I must make it clear to him that we do not regard the oral statement made about the Anderson Strathclyde affair as a substitute for a proper debate and vote in the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman earnestly to arrange a debate for next week. If he wanted to rearrange the business for next week, we should be happy to discuss the matter through the usual channels. If he has nothing to hide and believes that the Government have acted wisely, why not let us have the debate immediately?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the Government have acted with great wisdom throughout.—[Interruption.] The Government acted with more wisdom than the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who found himself in great trouble when he made his contribution to the discussion.
We have a crowded programme next week, but it pays regard to the demands made on Parliament at this time of the year. I am afraid that I cannot take the matter further.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate next week about the announcement in The Times today that the University of Oxford is lowering the standards for its entrance examination? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we do not debate the matter here it may become another lost cause?

Mr. Biffen: There are some who have regarded that establishment as a lost cause for a long time now. There is no prospect of Government time being made available for a debate on the subject. However, it is highly suitable


for a free enterprise exercise on the part of my hon. Friend for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I join the Leader of the Opposition in appealing for a debate on disarmament before the Easter recess because this is a matter of great concern throughout the country. May we link with that a debate on an up-to-date report on the effects of exposure to radiation, particularly from Windscale and elsewhere, which is now a current topic, so that we can have all the facts known to the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I accept that there is a widespread desire that there should be a debate on disarmament before the recess. I acknowledge that it would be to the advantage of the House if the debate arose on a motion wide enough to cover the points made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would greatly reassure public opinion by making a statement now that Mr. MacGregor will not be appointed chairman of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. If he thought that I could be nudged into saying anything more he is a poor judge of my sense of self-preservation.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As it could be argued that the long-term industrial survival of the kingdom will depend on precisely which side of the boundary between the nanosecond and the picosecond our computer capability lies, can my right hon. Friend say how soon it will be before we have a chance to debate the significant report produced by Mr. Alvey and the Government's recommendations on it?

Mr. Biffen: The debate cannot be next week, but I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 285, which over 80 hon. Members have signed.
[That this House regrets to note the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale to Early Day Motion No. 236, as the statement contained therein 'that the lady concerned was found guilty of a serious defamation by a learned judge' is completely false, since there was no trial of the action, merely an agreed statement in court in which there was no admission of defamation, and a payment into court of £100 by Mrs. Patricia Taylor, accepted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill; and urges the signatories of the Amendment to seek from the said hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill, up-to-date information regarding the whereabouts of Mrs. Patricia Taylor's pearls, gold watch and £10 premium bond handed to the Official Receiver at the time of the bankruptcy hearing, at which was said by the Registrar, Mr. Berkson, to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill, ' do you really want to take a sledge hammer to crack a nut.'.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an early debate on the use by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) of the law of defamation as a means of silencing reasonable comment by a member of the public on his actions? Do not actions such as this diminish free speech?

Mr. Biffen: My immediate reaction is to reflect how far we are from the Lib-Lab understanding of the last Parliament. The specific issues covered by the early-day motion raise matters that give rise to deep concern and great controversy. There is no possibility of Government time being made available to debate such a motion, but doubtless the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) will be taking his turn to seek the virtues and advantages of an Adjournment debate.

Mr. John Townend: In view of the widespread and growing feeling on the Back Benches of the need to timetable the proceedings of Standing Committees, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) last week and commence discussions through the usual channels with a view to re-establishing the Procedure Committee so that work can be started immediately and, I hope, its findings considered in the next Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: When I last answered that point, I said that I did not feel that there was sufficient time left in the balance of this Parliament to make the establishment of a Procedure Committee a practical proposition. As we are now one week nearer to the dissolution of Parliament than when I last answered the point, my answer must be one week more disappointing to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House clear up some misunderstanding and misgivings? It is widely rumoured that the Secretary of State for Energy has given advice to the OPEC Ministers about the long-term future of oil prices. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on the inter-relationship of the oil price that the British National Oil Company charges and the price mechanism of OPEC, as this is of the utmost importance?

Mr. Biffen: No one in the House would dispute the importance of the topic that the hon. Gentleman raises. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point.

Mr. Richard Body: As the European assembly is to spend public money in giving all its Members siver medals that they do not deserve will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week making it plain that he has no intention of spending public money and giving us the gold medals that we deserve?

Mr. Biffen: No statement of mine is necessary to achieve the ends that I know my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Ioan Evans: No matter what the right hon. Gentleman said about his sense of self-preservation, is he aware of the sense of self-preservation in the mining communities? May we have a statement next week about the appointment of the chairman of the National Coal Board, and at the same time will the right hon. Gentleman explain the financial arrangements that have been entered into with British Steel? Is £1 million to be paid for his services? What are the financial arrangements for the new chairman, and who is he to be?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully add to what I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on this point.

Mr. Richard Luce: Reverting to an earlier question, as there is considerable desire to see some of the


procedures of the House carefully reviewed, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the prospects of re-establishing the Select Committee on Procedure so that it may start working on this subject within the next few months?

Mr. Biffen: I do not want to turn my mind resolutely against this proposition at this stage. However, we are within the closing stages of this Parliament and this is not a matter that can be put together in a few weeks. It requires wide consent. I should be misleading my hon. Friend and the House if I were to suggest that this would come about.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for a debate on biotechnology, a science-based industry of the future in which, under this Government, we have been falling badly behind our competitors in West Germany, France, the United States and Japan?

Mr. Biffen: Clearly, no time is available next week, but I feel that I can do no better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report is set down as being relevant to the debate on the public expenditure White Paper next week?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do that, and happily confirm that it is.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a full day's debate, not just one and a half hours, on the Government civil defence regulations which this week have been opposed by all four of the main local authority associations? I ask particularly in the light of this morning's report by the British Medical Association that casualties can be expected of up to 33 million, that no part of the country would be immune and that medical services are completely hopeless, useless and futile in trying to deal with these events?

Mr. Biffen: I have no plans for such a debate next week and such are the constraints of time that I could not have any such plans. I hope however, that when we have the more general debate on defence, and it is recognised that the nuclear defence problem has a civil defence content as well as the more conventional defence content, all these matters can be considered.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: In view of the obvious interest in the possible appointment of Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board, will my right hon. Friend at least make a plea to the Prime Minister that the announcement of the appointment of the new chairman should be made sooner rather than later so that Mr. MacGregor can either get the credit for stopping the strike from taking place or beating it afterwards? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are becoming fed up with repeated strikes in the public service industries and are no longer prepared to tolerate strikes that have no purpose?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Michael English: Have not the Government got their knickers into a twist over the

spring Supplementary Estimates? If the Liaison Committee, in 10 minutes' time, recommends a half-day debate, under the new procedure on the spring Supplementary Estimates, it cannot be held later than the day after the Budget debate is opened. I imagine that, as that is the principal Budget debate day, that will not be wholly welcomed to either side of the House. Will the Leader of the House take steps, if necessary, to alter the business for 14 March?

Mr. Biffen: If the Liaison Committee decided that on this occasion it wished to initiate an Estimates debate, clearly the business now standing for Monday 14 March would have to be reconsidered.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is obviously fully conversant with European democrat brief No. 15, edited by Mr. Stanley Johnson, who I understand is a member of the assembly, which states that the European Commission should in the near future be putting forward proposals relating not merely to economic and trade aspects but also and explicitly to moral imperatives. In view of the massive constitutional implications across the Channel challenging directly the authority of this House, would my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate so that we can discuss how to counter this attempt to remove our power from us?

Mr. Biffen: I think that as long as we have Members of the calibre, independence and determination of my hon. Friend, this place is likely to retain its vitality and, I hope, its independence. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee a debate on moral imperatives next week or at any time thereafter.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Do I understand that the Leader of the House has given a firm assurance that, if the Liaison Committee wants to initiate a debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates as provided for in the new procedure, the Government will accee to that request and will not sabotage this new procedure as they tried to sabotage the Special Standing Committee procedure?

Mr. Biffen: I shall not be drawn by the contentious remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but the answer to his constructive observation is "Yes".

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 336, which condemns the brutality to the Baha'i community of Iran and the recent executions there?
[That this House extends deep sympathy to the Baha'i community following the sentencing to death of 22 of their members at Shiraz, Iran, on 12th and 13th February; deplores the flagrant abuse of human rights by the revolutionary courts of Iran; and calls upon the Iranian Government to ensure the dignity and safety of the remaining 300,000 Baha' is in Iran.]
Having regard to the gross offence that the Iranian treatment of the Baha'i community gives to the Baha'i community in our own country, will he arrange an early debate on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that I cannot arrange an early debate in Government time, but I shall certainly draw the point of my hon. Friend and the early-day motion to which he refers to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House note the question that I asked the Home Secretary relating to the letter which I received from a constituent of mine who had been at Greenham Common detailing violence in the form of kicking, bruising and manhandling by police officers? Will he ensure that a Minister from the Home Department attends the House within the next few days to make a full statement detailing and replying to those accusations?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give such an undertaking, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman expresses.

Mrs. Renee Short: The Leader of the House will have heard my question earlier to the Prime Minister and the usual sterile response that it elicited. In view of the fact that the BMA report provides a devastating exposé of the way in which both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Services have persistently misled the people of this country about the effects of nuclear war, does he not agree that it is in the interests of the House that this matter should be debated at the earliest opportunity and will he make sure that that is done forthwith?

Mr. Biffen: Clearly I cannot add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I acknowledge that the motion which will govern the debate on nuclear defence should be drawn in such terms as to enable a wide debate to take place.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is it the intention of the Leader of the House that we should debate the Liaison Committee's report on the Select Committee system, especially the recommendation about televising the work of Select Committees, perhaps bearing in mind that breakfast television is getting short of interesting material?

Mr. Biffen: I think that it could be interpreted as a somewhat dismissive comment upon the work of Select Committees. However, I think that it would be helpful for the House to have a period to reflect upon that very important report. Therefore, I have no proposals for an early debate on this subject.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given that the Government's economic policies have been directly responsible for the loss of 80,000 jobs on Merseyside and the closure of 22 factories in Kirkby, when may we have a debate on the prospects of Merseyside and the complete absence of Government policies to deal with its needs?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the jaundiced premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I assure him that the topic that he raises would be wholly suitable for debate on the Budget resolutions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Could the Leader of the House say when a statement can be made or a debate held on the British textile industry? As he knows, there have been extensive negotiations, but no debate has been held. The British Industry Textile Action Campaign produced an

important document and there is extreme anxiety about the: state of the industry. I should have thought that it was high time that, in view of the negotiations which the Government have been undertaking, a debate was held, particularly in view of the enormous job losses in the industry since 1979.

Mr. Biffen: I should have thought that he recent debate on the work of the Department of Trade was substantially related to the multi-fibre arrangement, which is central to the fortunes of the textile industry. In any case, I am sure that the speech which the hon. Gentleman has in mind can well be made in the debate that follows the Budget.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 347 entitled "Justice for Alan Grimshaw"?
[That this House demands that Alan Grimshaw, a witness before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1973, regarding National Coal Board purchases, and subsequently sacked and victimised for his honest endeavours, should be fully supported in his rightful demand for a searching public inquiry into all the events that led to his testifying before the Select Committee, his dismissal from the National Coal Board and the subsequent failure of Parliament to protect at all times the witnesses who give evidence to the House and its Committees.]
Is he aware that this mart, who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1973–74, was later sacked by the National Coal Board because he gave evidence regarding coal board purchases? Does he realise that this case will not go away, that it has recently been exposed in the Sunday Mirror and that it will continue to be so? Surely it is time that we had a debate so that the motion calling for a searching public inquiry into this matter can be dealt with? Should not Parliament give this man a fair crack of the whip? He is now seriously ill. At this late stage we should give him a chance to get justice after he reported to Parliament and was kicked in the teeth for doing so.

Mr. Biffen: The House will recollect that Mr. Grimshaw's allegations have been the subject of examination by two Committees of this House. It the hon. Gentleman feels that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House, I suggest that it is a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE POWERS)

Mr. Secretary King, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Leon Brittan and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to remove certain restrictions on the powers of local authorities under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March and to be printed. [Bill 98].

Common Agricultural Policy (Price Proposals)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4020/83, together with Addendum 1, Addendum 2, and Addendum 3, on agricultural prices and related measures, 11089/82 on proposals for altering the intervention prices for butter, skimmed milk powder and certain cheeses, 11946/82 containing a report on agricultural markets in 1982, and 4376/83 on aid for seeds in the 1984–85 and 1985–86 marketing years; recognises the contribution United Kingdom agriculture makes to the national economy; and supports the Government's intention to seek an agreement on 1983–84 farm support prices and related measures designed to reduce surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, and to take account of the interests of customers and food processors.
This is the traditional debate that we have at this time of the year prior to the price fixing negotiations. The House will notice that the motion is very similar to the motion that we tabled last year. There is, however, one slight difference this year, and that is that there is no amendment by the Opposition. We can only presume that the wording of last year's amendment would not have fitted in with the events that have occurred during the year since that debate.
In the amendment to our motion last year words were used to the effect that the CAP could not provide the British people with reasonably priced foodstuffs and that it could not provide the basis for a policy that would properly serve the interests of either the British farmer or the consumer. It would be rather difficult to put down such an amendment following a year in which British farming has made a substantial recovery from the difficulties of previous years and food prices have risen by less than at any time in 15 years. That is in stark contrast to the suggestions that were made by one or two passionately anti-European hon. Members on both sides of the House about the consequence of the price fixing last year.
Some hon. Members predicted substantial increases if the Commission's proposals were accepted, let alone anything higher than the Commission's proposals. As we have seen, none of those suggestions and threats has come to fruition. It is interesting to reflect that under the Government farm gate prices have been a successful element in the battle against inflation. The retail prices index has increased by 50·9 per cent., the food price index has increased by 34·7 per cent., but the farm gate price index has increased by only 23 per cent. The latest food price figures published for January show the smallest increase for 15 years. Fifteen years ago we were not even a member of the Community. It was suggested at that time that stable prices were the order of the day, yet stable prices have been achieved since.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Have the Government made any endeavour to give separate index figures for those foodstuffs that are covered by the CAP and those that are not? The Food Manufacturers Federation Inc. has produced figures showing that there is a wide variation between the two.

Mr. Walker: The figures that I have given on farm gate prices are for products covered by the CAP. It is argued that such products as coffee, tea, lemons, and so

forth, not covered by the CAP have gone down in price during this period. If some of those prices—some of which are now escalating—have gone down during that period and farm gate prices covered by the CAP have gone up far less than food prices, it must be concluded that such things as the higher costs of distribution and wages have the main impact on food prices. That was the conclusion to which my predecessor came when he was asked how much the doubling of prices that had taken place under the Labour Government was due to the CAP. He had to answer that out of a 111 per cent. increase, only 10 per cent. was due to the CAP. Therefore, we can certainly claim that this has been a period of remarkably stable farm gate prices within the CAP.
There have been other areas in which this period has been remarkably successful, not just in terms of the food price figures that have been achieved for the consumer—

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the consumer is also the taxpayer. Has he read in The Times today that expenditure under the CAP is already £330 million above the budget and that it is likely to run out of money by November this year? What will my right hon. Friend insist on to ensure that the consumer or taxpayer does not have to pay?

Mr. Walker: I shall deal with prices later in my speech. Having been subject to my hon. Friend's passionately anti-European views for four years, I know that at no stage did he predict that in 1981 the cost of the budget would decrease and that in 1982 there would be only a relatively small increase. No figures are yet available for the first quarter, but certainly they will be worse than was budgeted for due to a whole range of reasons, some of them climatic. However, if the first quarter's figures are projected over a year they give a completely wrong impression, because the first quarter and the last quarter are the high points of expenditure and the second and third quarters are very much lower.
One important advantage that we have enjoyed over the past four years has been the improvement of our self-sufficiency. In those areas in which we can produce food ourselves our self-sufficiency has increased from 67 to 76 per cent., thus benefiting our balance of payments. Over the last decade the food industry has started to have a remarkable impact on our export performance. I must point out to those hon. Members who are passionately opposed to the EC that much of that is due to the considerable improvement that is taking place in our food exports to Europe. In the mid-1970s we were exporting £300 million of food products, and in 1982 that figure was £2·5 billion. That is a remarkable achievement.
I am pleased that the predictions about effects on farming have not proved to be correct. 1982 was a year of almost perfect weather conditions for British agriculture—for milk and cereal production, for virtually all other major crops and for the livestock industry. During the year there was a substantial recovery in farm incomes. There has also been a real improvement in farm wages. In the last year of the Labour Government the average agricultural wage was £61 a week, while this year it will be £105 a week. I am also pleased to say that, unlike under the Labour Government, when, in real terms, agricultural wages went down, every year under this Government agriculture wages have risen in real terms. In addition, the


relationship between manufacturing and agricultural wages is higher than it was in any year of a Labour Government. In a period of recession and a substantial drop in farm incomes, that has made a considerable contribution towards rewarding skilled farm workers.
The House will know from the White Paper that I have recently published that there was a substantial revival of farm incomes in 1982. I have noted the manner in which elements of the media and, indeed, some politicians have treated the recovery in farm incomes during that year. I particularly object to several commentators saying that the 450 per cent. increase in farm incomes in Northern Ireland was outrageous. All those connected with Northern Ireland will know that farming there experienced the disastrous effects of a combination of weather conditions and other factors. Although large in percentage terms, nobody should be complacent about the recovery of farm incomes in Northern Ireland, because a great section of Northern Ireland's agriculture still has considerable difficulties and problems. To treat the recovery in incomes in percentage terms as outrageous and almost immoral when the average income of a farm in Northern Ireland has risen from about £700 a year to £3,000 a year, is not the sort of comment that anybody informed on agriculture matters should make; rather it is a matter for relief.
In real terms, farm incomes dropped from 1976 onwards and by 1980 they were 52 per cent. of the peak figures of the mid-1970s. As a result of the recovery in 1981, which continued in 1982, they are about 77 per cent. in real terms of that peak. However, in cash terms they are substantially more—approximately 50 per cent. more than in the year before that in which the Government took office. That improvement is of great importance to many industries outside British agriculture. I am delighted that during 1982 investment in plant and machinery by British agriculture substantially increased, approaching about £600 million. There were similar increases in investment in buildings. These increases in investment are of substantial importance to our engineering industry in the midlands and elsewhere and to our construction industry.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister referred to both fixed capital and plant and machinery. As he is very fond of making comparisons between his Government and the Labour Government—although after three or four years these should perhaps be cited less frequently—does he recognise that the investment which is taking place and which is estimated for 1982 in plant and machinery and in fixed equipment still falls far below the level in real terms during the last two full years of the Labour Government? For example, investment in plant and machinery is still only three quarters of the level of 1978 and 1979.

Mr. Walker: I am in no way complacent. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Obviously he agrees that the important thing is to see that farm incomes continue to recover to the degree that proper investment programmes can take place. In 1982 the year for which I have quoted figures, there was not much improvement in the first half of the year, but a very substantial one in the second half. I hope that improvement will continue very strongly throughout 1983 and 1984. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the substantial fall in investment in plant, machinery and buildings was bad not only for the future of British agriculture but for the future of the industries closely associated with it.

Mr. David Crouch: On this question of investment in plant and machinery, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is enough "buying British" by farmers? So much today comes from across the Channel even though we are able to manufacture such plant and machinery in this country.

Mr. Walker: I am not satisfied in the sense that when it comes to combine harvesters, for example, there is no British machine available, but British machinery is available in other areas, and one of the most satisfying aspects of attending both last year's royal show and the Smithfield show in the autumn was to see a great deal of innovation in both ideas and applications in British manufacturing industry. I hope that British farmers will take full advantage of that.

Mr. John Farr: My right hon. Friend quite rightly paid tribute to farm workers for what they have done towards increasing productivity. We all welcome the rise in farm incomes. Can he assure the House, however, that he is aware of the unacceptably high level, not only this year but for the last two or three years, of fatalities on the land, particularly among those who operate the complicated machines of today?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I am very much aware of that. Safety on farms is a very important issue to which we must continue to give our attention.
At the end of 1982 British agriculture was in a strong position. It was continuing to return to high investment levels and I think we can claim that of the agriculture industries in western Europe it was the strongest and most viable. It was also benefiting in a comparative way from the former high interest rates and their subsequent fall. A great deal of credit for the manner in which British agriculture has come through a period of world recession is due to the basic qualities of the industry, its powers of innovation, the heavy investment of the past, the importance placed on research and its speedy application and the very good labour relations that have existed throughout the industry.
Over the period of this Government there have been some considerable changes, not only in the common agricultural policy itself and the cost and burden of it, but in the British relationship to it and benefit from it. We have throughout the period, as I have illustrated with the figures I have given of the increase in farm gate prices, pursued a policy of endeavouring to obtain prudent price increases. With no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, who suggested that I might make comparisons between Governments less often, the average price increases during the period of this Government have been very substantially below t lose that occurred during the term of office of their predecessor. The cost of the common agricultural budget, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) expressed such anxiety, went up by 210 per cent. under the Labour Government but under this Government has gone up by 20 per cent. When we came into office the proportion of the European budget accounted for by the CAP was 80 per cent. I am pleased to say that it has come down to 65 per cent.
A third important factor is that when we came to office the proportion of the common agricultural budget that came as direct benefit to the United Kingdom was 5 per cent. During the lifetime of this Government we have more than doubled that figure. We have over this four-year


period steadily and by negotiation—tough negotiation at times—obtained a considerable change in the CAP. We did things that were positively advantageous to British agriculture.
We brought about the early revaluations of the green pound, which turned us from the most disadvantaged country in Europe to one of the most advantaged. During a period when there were both weather and other difficulties we were absolutely right substantially to increase the hill farm subsidies, which enabled agriculture in Scotland, Wales and parts of the north of England to come through a very difficult period and brought about the sort of recovery in farm incomes that took place last year.
On the cattle side, the total of grants, hill farm subsidies and suckler cow premiums is now nearly double what it was when the Government came into office. Had that not been done, immense devastation would have been caused to hill farming areas. We negotiated a sheepmeat regime, which is good not only for our consumers but for the British farming community and of considerable net benefit to the United Kingdom.
In a difficult period we have given aid to the horticulture industry to mitigate the disadvantage that it faced in comparison with the Dutch in fuel prices, amounting to £6·5 million a year. We gave help to the apple industry in marketing, and when that help proved successful we recently announced help for the replanting of orchards to take advantage of improved marketing.
We doubled the butter subsidy, improved the beef premium scheme and, more than anything else, endeavoured to bring about a substantial improvement in the marketing of all our various products.
I shall now deal with the Commission's proposals for the coming year. We have heard today about one of the issues on which at Council meetings we have been pressing very hard and on which I myself sent a very strong note to the Commission. Some progress has been announced by the Commission in lowering its initial proposals on the price of milk. I believe that that is right, and I welcome the reduction of 0·8 per cent., but I still think that by far the best thing for milk would be to eradicate the co-responsibility levy and have a nil increase in milk prices.
We have started to see a substantial improvement in the use of milk for manufacturing. I am pleased to say that in butter, cheese and other dairy products the United Kingdom is becoming far more aggressive at acquiring a proper share, not just of the domestic market, but of the overseas market. There is no doubt that the future for milk producers lies in increasing manufactured and processed goods. There is no future improvement for doorstep delivery, because it is at such a high and good level at the moment. I agree with the statement made yesterday at the 50th conference of the Dairy Trade Federation that the important thing now is for both the dairy trade and farm producers to do everything in their power to see that milk prices are kept as stable as possible over the forthcoming period.
Any comparison with milk prices of any kind anywhere in Europe shows that the milk delivered to the doorstep in the United Kingdom is a very good bargain for the housewife. I think that there is unanimity in the House and, I hope, among consumers that we must retain that delivery system, which not only gives us the highest milk

consumption in western Europe and probably in the Western world, but provides an important service to many people, especially the elderly. I certainly intend to do everything possible to ensure that that service continues. Alas, however, I cannot regard it as a service offering great scope for improvement as it is already nationwide and consumption is already extremely high.
That being so, it is clear that a greater share of dairy product markets is the improvement that our industry needs to achieve. In historical terms, our performance worldwide has been very disappointing compared with that of our main competitors. When our position is compared with that of the Dutch, the Danes or the French in the cheese market, it is clear that there is enormous scope for improvement.

Mr. William Ross: Everyone welcomes the Minister's stoic defence of doorstep milk deliveries, but will he comment on the milk prices paid by manufacturers in the various EC countries?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a complicated matter. Milk is available for our manufacturing industry on a considerable scale. Indeed, where we have begun to innovate and to be more aggressive, great and profitable progress has been made. In the absence of my dog I hate to mention Lymeswold cheese, but that has been a great success. Again, Stilton used to be sold to a very small number of people. It is now produced on a vast and growing scale. It could always have been produced on that scale, but we chose to treat it as a small novelty rather than as a product to be marketed worldwide. Considerable changes have been made and I believe that milk will be available to manufacturers in this country at prices that allow them to compete worldwide.
As the House knows, I took the view that last year's increase in cereal prices was unnecessary. I still believe that that was the correct view. This year the Commission has proposed increases of 3 per cent. for feed and 2·5 per cent. for bread-making wheat. I appreciate that with inflation in Europe at 9 per cent. and input costs rising that is a reduction in real terms, but I still believe that a freeze on cereal prices this year would be far more sensible. We shall certainly press for that in the negotiations.
Price increases in other areas of surplus production should also be more prudent, not only for wine and olives, which do not have a great impact here except on individual consumers, but for sugar for which the proposed increase is 4 per cent. Although that increase is below the average and through the B quota levy the producers make a substantial contribution towards disposal of the surpluses, I see no need for such an increase.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is interesting to know the Government's position on all these commodities, but does the Minister intend to put the Government's position at risk again this year as he did last year by seeking to link the budgetary question with the price fixing and allowing Britain to be overruled again for the same reasons?

Mr. Walker: Budgets and price fixing are linked in any case, because the budget is the cost of the price fixing. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether specific matters will be voted on and the Luxembourg compromise ignored, that is a matter for other countries. The way in which Italy and France have behaved since the last


occasion, however, suggests that to accept it as an established principle that the Luxembourg compromise should regularly be ignored might be damaging to their own vested interests on other occasions.
We shall, as always, attempt to argue the case on the price fixing objectively. In any price fixing by any Government compromises have to be made to produce an acceptable package. For every Minister to obtain everything on his list would be a contradiction in terms, because no two lists are the same. We certainly try to find allies, but difficulties arise because other countries have far higher rates of inflation and are thus more anxious for price increases.

Mr. Marlow: As we are net importers of food from across the Channel, if prices rise more than they otherwise might there will be an impact on the British consumer, because we shall have to pay more as a result. Last year the veto did not operate, but will the Luxembourg compromise allow us to veto any price increase that we do not like this year? Until last year that was always assumed to be the case. What is the position now?

Mr. Walker: In any negotiation one must consider the total package and the extent to which it is right for the Community and for one's own national interests. If we all operated on the basis of a perpetual veto of anything that did not ideally suit our requirements there would never be any kind of price fixing, because there would always be at least one country that did not approve of the price in question. Thus, as under previous Ministers, these matters are the subject of overall negotiations. One must decide whether the package finally available is good for the Community and for one's own country.
There is currently anxiety in two industries that are not enjoying the same confidence and prosperity as most of British agriculture and horticulture. There is considerable anxiety about the current level of pig prices and there have been protests by producers throughout the country. Two main suggestions rapidly come to the fore. One is that there should be a pig regime, just as there is a beef regime and a sheep regime. In my view, no Minister, whatever his political party, will ever bring in a heavy pig or poultry regime. The speed with which production can be increased in those sectors is such that if a price were fixed that was tolerable to producers a massive, rapid and permanent increase in production would result and would make such a regime impossible.
It is interesting to note that on three occasions under the Labour Government there were similar major crises in pig industry prices. On each occasion the then Minister made it clear that there was no possibility of a heavy regime on pigs. So far as I know, no Minister has ever suggested such a thing. Moreover, if the deficiency payment system were applied to pig production the cost would rapidly become crippling. There would then have to be quotas. Clearly, however, the Labour party and no doubt the SDP intend to suggest such a scheme. During a pre-election period, if any section of British agriculture is discontented it is perfectly fair for the Opposition to suggest a scheme. However, although such schemes may well feature in election addresses, pig and poultry farmers will know that if they ever came into operation they would have to be severely limited and quotas would ultimately have to be imposed—and British producers certainly do not like quotas.

Mr. Geraint Howells: No doubt the Minister will argue the case for quotas whether or not he is in favour of them. Let me remind him that we are fortunate that we have a deficiency payments scheme for lamb that is working well. We also have a deficiency payments scheme for beef that is working exceptionally well. Going back a few years, we had a deficiency payments scheme for pigs, which worked well for pig producers. In my view, the majority of pig producers in Britain are keen to see the reintroduction of a scheme similar to the one that operated a few years ago.

Mr. Walker: The big difference with sheep and beef is the speed with which pig and poultry production can be increased. We will hear all sorts of suggestions in the coming election months. The Labour Government did not do anything throughout their period of office. If ever in the next 100 years there were an alliance Government, they, too, would find that because of the speed of increasing production it would not be an area in which they could introduce a heavy regime.
It has been suggested that as there are cereal surpluses the cereal price should be reduced. As is always the case with the disposal of surpluses, if the price were lowered to all those who take in feed, the cost would be considerable. If feed costs were reduced by only £10 a tonne, that would increase by over a third the cost of one of the most expensive regimes in the community. A judgment would have to be made about the desirability of adding billions of pounds to the cost of the regime.
During 1982 as a whole there was an improvement in incomes and a substantial increase in pig production. In the early part of the year prices were exceedingly good. There are two schemes available throughout the Community for pig producers. One is private storage and the other is a substantial increase in restitutions on exports to third countries. On the latest figures, although we have 10 per cent. of the total number of pigs in Europe, we are taking only 2 per cent. of all the money available from Europe for pig producers. That is because we have not taken advantage of world markets and the export restitution that is available to anything like the degree that the Dutch and the Danes have done. Nor have we yet caught up with the marketing qualities of our main rivals.
I hope that as a result of the launch of Charter bacon there will be a substantial improvement at long last in the bacon market in this country. The Danes have taken the British market, never by price cutting, but always by better quality control, marketing and packaging. The industry should recognise that there are facilities of which it could take advantage. I hope that Food from Britain will do urgent work to see what help it can give to marketing in this sphere.
There was no mention of pig producers in our debate at this time last year. Of course, the prices they were obtaining were very good. Over 1982 as a whole, as the figures show, incomes went up and production went up substantially. In what has always been a self-sufficient area, we must take full advantage of the market place. Our pig producers can produce pigs as well as—or probably better than—anyone in Europe. There must be aggressive marketing of those pigs in Britain and worldwide.
One of the other popular arguments among farmers is that the sheepmeat regime has done great damage to pig producers. Analysis of the 1982 figures shows that that is not so. In fact, throughout 1982 pig consumption went up


and lamb consumption went down. If we compare monthly cycles of sheep prices and pig prices, we again see that there is no validity in that argument.
The other sphere of concern is the glasshouse industry, which has had difficulty, partly because of the currency exchange rate and partly because of the advantage that the Dutch have had in energy costs. Looking at the prospects for 1983, one sees that the currency exchange rate has moved to the detriment of the Dutch and to the advantage of our producers. In March, the Dutch energy price, as agreed by the Dutch Government, will be increased substantially, so our industry will be in a more competitive position. We have already started discussions with the industry about what we can do to conserve energy and encourage, if necessary, a switch to coal where that would be more economic. I have also discussed with the industry ways in which we can improve the marketing operations for crops that are fundamental to the glasshouse industry, such as tomatoes and plants.
Last year was a good year, because British agriculture took full advantage of weather conditions. Given normal weather, 1983 should be another good year for farm incomes. Farmers will get the full benefit of some of the regime increases that took place in the latter part of last year. They will have the benefit too of the lower interest rates. In a range of areas input costs have improved because of the lower inflation rate. Therefore, with normal weather conditions, 1983 and 1984 should be good years for British agriculture.
A minority of critics, some tinged with anti-Europeanism and some with other attitudes, wish to create hostility towards the industry. They say that it has received far too much aid and financial assistance from Governments and that taxpayers, money is poured away on it. By all criteria the industry is serving and will serve the country well. It has improved our balance of payments, reduced imports, increased exports and provided employment and new jobs. The aid that Governments give is primarily an incentive to investment, fundamental research and the speedy application of that research to the industry. In my judgment we have the best agriculture industry in Europe and it would be crazy not to take full advantage of it.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I must thank the Minister for his full resume. He said little about the motion. I want to pick up two or three points before dealing with the main aspects.
The Minister talked about those who were critical of the Common Market and the common agricultural policy and said they were either tinged with anti-Europeanism or objected to too much support being given to the industry. I reject that. Those of us who are trying to get sense into the European concept recognise that instead of creating a community of nations we have created a cockpit of warring interests in which the different nations are locked within inflexible rules which of themselves are creating difficulties and tensions. Those who do not believe me should speak to apple growers when they go to Brussels or listen to the criticism by some Tory Members of the European Parliament of their apparent colleagues.
Instead of projecting harmonious Europeanism, the Common Market has tended to split Europe. The Minister

forgets that there is more to Europe than the countries of the Common Market. The Common Market has also created a situation in which anti-Europeanism is almost endemic at every meeting of the Council of Ministers. We who love Europe—Italy is my second country—resent that nonsense.
The Minister has said that we are tinged with the feeling that farming gets too much support from taxpayers. That might be true of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). Our objection is the opposite. It is that in a period in which the Government are withdrawing support from every other industry in Britain the same Government are increasing support to agriculture and trying to avoid facts by doing it under cover. They complained, for example, about my proposals for direct support, a deficiency payments structure, because it would be known and public, and therefore no Treasury would allow it in Britain. In other words, they agree with higher support by the taxpayer as long as it can be concealed. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston did a great job in publicising the nature of the support system. We are not tinged with opposition to direct support of farming. I cannot accept that. But we resent it when we see it applied to only one industry in this form, while day after day other parts of British industry are going down the plughole because of the Government's lack of support.

Mr. Richard Body: Surely the important consideration is that before 1947 farm incomes were higher in real terms than they are now.

Mr. Buchan: That may be true in real terms. It was certainly true in the mid-1970s as we were beginning to move into the Common Market. However, I shall come later to the question of farm incomes.
In view of what the Prime Minister said this afternoon about the coal industry, I wonder what she would say if she were to apply the same support policy to the coal industry, and to say to it, "Keep every pit open, produce as much as you like, and in whatever quantities you like, and we will buy it." Indeed, the Government could go further, and I do not know why they do not, because the end point of much of the common agricultural support policy is the destruction of food. We could have a glorious blaze with the mountains of coal at the end of each year. What a pity that the Minister spoilt an otherwise reasonable review of agriculture with this infantile nonsense.

Mr. Peter Walker: The only true comparison between the coal industry and agriculture would be to pursue a policy of keeping cows when they were barren and ewes when they were 10 years old.

Mr. Buchan: That is what I meant about infantile nonsense.
The argument could also apply to steel. The same thing would apply to Mr. MacGregor and his steel exercise. I remember a distinguished former permanent secretary to the Ministry, Sir John Winnifrith, saying in a letter to me that this system is fundamentally unjust because it says to farmers, "Produce what you like and in whatever quantity you like, and the consumer, society, the nation, will purchase it." If it is good enough for one, surely it is good enough for the other. In my opinion, it is not good enough for one. We should have an intelligent method of support. We reject, not support for the industry, but the stupid and bizarre nature of that support.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Labour party regrets or welcomes the increased production of food from our own resources? Does it welcome the fact that about 76 per cent. of our food is now supplied by British producers?

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman were diligent in reading the farming press, he would know that I said precisely that. May I refer him to an article of about 27 January in which I made that very point? However, we must bear in mind that the reason for the expansion of production in this country was not merely the operations of the common agricultural policy. It is true that farmers responded rationally to the demands of the CAP, as well they might, because it gave them an open-ended guarantee. The real reason, to quote Sir Brian Hayes, another permanent secretary at the Ministry, was the application of science to industry, the new seeds, breeds, livestock improvements, and so on. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the two and try to put words into my mouth. I am in favour of expansion in the British industry, consonant with cost, the environment, and the needs of the consumer. They must all be taken into consideration.
I want to comment on the areas that the Minister said were in difficulties in the glowing picture that he painted. He spoke about pigs. What an extraordinary proposition it is to say that it is beyond mankind's ability to devise a system of support for the pig industry! The reason is that we are locked into the inflexible rules of the Common Market. That is why we cannot support the pig industry. Let us consider the release of cereals. There are surplus cereals in Britain which at some point will be either destroyed or exported with heavy tax-paid support in the form of export subsidies. The Minister shakes his head. If he has a third solution, I hope he will say so. Clearly there is no third solution. So the surplus is either destroyed or exported at a subsidised price. There are only two things that one can do with surplus production: either destroy it or export it—or, of course, one keeps it in store. What else can one do with a surplus of which one cannot dispose? [Interruption.] Surely hon. Gentlemen have seen the colour photographs in The Sunday Times showing the continual destruction of food in the Common Market. By definition, there is nothing else that one can do with it. Let us admit that, so that we can proceed.
The Minister says that mankind cannot find a means of releasing that surplus to our pig producers at a price at which they would be prepared to sell to Russia or any other country. That is what the Minister is saying, and it is precisely because we are locked into the inflexible system of the common agricultural policy. That is why we cannot take advantage of that surplus to help our hard-pressed pig industry.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said that there had been a deficiency payments structure that supported pigs. That structure contained considerable subtlety—from feed costs formulae to the middle band, and premiums on quality. It was a subtle and mature deficiency payments system. Why do not the Government apply it? It is not because of the speed of the production, but because we are locked in the inflexible rules of the Common Market. Thus, our view of the Minister's speech today must be tinged with scepticism.
I understand the Minister's dilemma. His permanent dilemma is that he recognises the stupidity of a system that is constantly escalating prices. Not only is the escalation

of price written in, in the sense that that is the way support is given, but there is a written-in tendency, that can be obscured from year to year, of an increase also in the rate of price increase. It is thought that those of us who appear to oppose price increases do not support agricultural production. That is the dilemma. One way to deal with the dilemma is to leave the system. That is our solution. We say that by leaving the system we avoid the dilemma. However, I understand the Minister's dilemma.
The Minister was fair enough to say that he is now seeking a freeze on commodities in surplus. I hope that he does so, not only in our councils here, but in the Council of Ministers. He rebuked me for not having tabled an amendment to the motion. We tabled an amendment last year, and much good it did us. There was a 10 or 11 per cent. increase in prices as a result of the Council breaking the Luxembourg agreement. Therefore, perhaps it is better for us not to have tabled an amendment this year. We agree with what the motion says about
measures designed to reduce surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, and to take account of the interests of customers and food processors".
We agree with the motion, but we want to see whether the Minister will carry it out in practice by taking the necessary measures.
I apologise for taking so long over my introductory remarks, but I was provoked. Let us consider the farming aspect. We are pleased that farm incomes are restored. The right hon. Gentleman has no reason to believe that there are objections in the country solely to the 45 per cent. increase in farm incomes. But when there are 3·5 million unemployed people in Britain whose incomes have been halved and proper increases in unemployment benefit are not forthcoming from the Government and when the general standard of living has decreased, those are two reasons why there are criticisms of the 45 per cent. increase.

Mr. Maclennan: Equality of misery.

Mr. Buchan: We believe in equality. The hon. Gentleman has moved fast since he joined the SDP. At one time he believed in equality. I am explaining why criticisms are made of the 45 per cent. increase. It is when 3·5 million people are unemployed and when the Government have reduced the earnings-related supplement and cut 5 per cent. from invalidity benefits. The hon. Gentleman should grow up and recognise how people feel about these matters.
Another problem is that the 45 per cent. is by no means evenly distributed. Forty-five per cent. sounds fine, but there are still many poor farmers in my area. One of the Labour party's objections to the farm support system is that it is unable to distinguish between the rich and the poor farmer. It creates an imbalance between livestock and cereals and between the big and the small farmer. The annual White Paper states that the top 13 per cent. of farm businesses produce 50 per cent. of the output. Therefore, the remaining 50 per cent. of output comes from 87 per cent. of farms. By definition, therefore, there is an unequal distribution of that 45 per cent. Some farmers are getting a hell of a lot, others are not. I object to that. I object to the taxpayer and the consumer helping to make the rich farmer richer. I wish to find a method whereby that can be equalised.
There is a discrepancy in the increase in different types of farm. From 1972 to the present time, all farm incomes


rose by an annual 10 per cent. But the incomes of specialist dairies rose considerably more and the incomes of specialist cereal farms rose by almost double. The Labour party objects to that imbalance.
A great deal has been made of the fact that consumer prices—I am not sure of the present rate of inflation or the position during the past month or two—have been rising less than the retail price index. That is true. The figures are interesting. Let us begin with 1970, with a base of 100. That is two years before we joined the Common Market. The figure remained steady until 1972. From then, the increase in food prices rose dramatically because Britain had joined the Common Market. The reason was the double engine of the transitional period and the bringing in of common agricultural prices. The figure rose dramatically but has been declining since 1980.
Throughout the period 1970 to 1982, the increase in food prices was higher than the retail prices index figure. That is a factor in inflation. If food prices rise, there is no point saying, "They did not really rise," or, "They have not risen because the retail index is higher." It is part of pushing up the retail prices index. The charge of the Labour party is not that food prices have risen more sharply than the general retail prices index, but that they rose more than necessary because of the operation of the common agricultural policy. Do not take my word for it. Lloyds' Bank Economic Bulletin, which is a reasonable authority, states:
British consumers are, however, paying over £3 bn more for their food than if world prices had prevailed.
Another authority is Sir Brian Hayes, who is the Ministry's permanent secretary. He told the Select Committee on Agriculture two years ago that prices at that time were costing the British consumer £2·25 billion a year more because of the operation of the CAP.
The charge is that food prices are more than they need to be. That is a worse indictment than saying that prices had risen because of the operations of God. Prices have risen because of the operations of man and the common agricultural policy. If that £3 billion is divided between the population of Britain, numbering 55 million, the British consumer is paying about £55 a head. A family of four pays about £200 a year, or £4 a week—and the man may be unemployed or on low pay. He may be a farm worker—[HON. MEMBERS: "£5 a week. As always, I am as generous as possible. The additional cost to a family may be £4 or £5 a week because of the common agricultural policy.
A memorandum entitled "Guidelines for European Agriculture" expounded a long-term strategy for the adaptation of the common agricultural policy. The commission is becoming worried, and apparently it has more reason to be worried than the Minister appeared to be. It says:
The Community needs to ensure that its agricultural prices are brought more into line with those received by producers in competing countries, or that its agricultural producers participate more in the cost of exports".
That means that they must either reduce their prices or lose some of the export restitution.
What are the facts in attempting to bring the common agricultural policy into line with world prices? There has been an improvement during the past year or two which has been entirely due to the strength of the American dollar. I wish to consider an example of constant prices.

In 1980 the gap in wheat prices was 37 per cent. between the United States and the Common Market. Today, at constant prices, the gap is 43 per cent. In a crucial commodity such as wheat there has been no improvement.
Those hon. Members who have, over a long period, looked at the relationship between EC prices and consumer prices can clearly see the link. The cost does not end there. This huge consumer cost is added to by a cost to the taxpayer in supporting the system.
The Minister is fond of saying that this percentage has been reducing. It has, but it is rising again. "The Agricultural Position in the Community" in 1982 shows that the percentage paid to support agriculture was dropping. In 1978 the figure was nearly 80 per cent., in 1980, 73 per cent. and in 1981, 64 per cent., as it was in 1982. The projection for 1983 is 69·8 per cent. When the right hon. Gentleman answered a question recently, he said that the figure would remain at 65 per cent. The European Community report suggests that the figure will increase to almost 70 per cent.
The prospects are that it will be increasingly difficult to get rid of the surplus on the world market. That is an obvious point. That will mean either more retained storage or destruction, at a further cost to export restitutions. Internal consumption—which is stagnating—is likely to fall, and production will continue to rise. Given those factors, it is inevitable that whatever happens to price fixing the support system will continue and increase. That adds up to increasing and open-ended expenditure, high prices and high taxation. There will be high taxation not for the pleasure of achieving cheaper prices, but to bring about dearer prices.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not true to say that the massive and increasing surpluses overhanging the world markets are depressing world market prices, which will make the cost of disposal even greater than it is at the moment?

Mr. Buchan: It will do three things. It will, as the hon. Gentleman said, depress the world market and put up the cost to the taxpayer of export restitutions. It will damage markets that we should be trying to protect, especially in the Third world countries. It is no wonder that alarm bells are ringing in the Common Market. The commissioners say:
the rate of expansion of exports on the world markets will not continue in the medium term either because of the economic recession or because of intense competition from our major trading partners, particularly the US".
That is the third factor. There is a possibility of trade antagonism between ourselves and the United States, and possibly between other countries.
The White Paper deals with public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies. For market regulation under the CAP in 1978–79, it was £337 million. Last year, it shot up to more than £1 billion. For the first time, we are spending more than £1 billion on storage for the open market of surplus production. The cost has trebled in the past three years.
The Minister might not be worried, but it appears that the commissioners are worried. That is a significant change because they have not always been in the forefront of any anxiety about the future. They think that the EEC budget is in danger of incurring a £1,200 million deficit by the end of the year. Figures circulating within the EEC have led officials to wonder how long the CAP can continue without some radical change in the system. There


was not a word of that from the Minister. He did not criticise the nature of the system. Some officials are obviously becoming worried and want there to be some change. They say that the cost is escalating.
Even without a possible trade war between ourselves and the United States, before agreement of this year's package advances by the commission on its farm budgets are £460 million more than last year, and already £330 million more than the 1983 budget provisions. That is the position that we face, and the Minister should have paid some attention to it.
Strange things happen in the method of support and the cost of the agricultural budget. I refer the Minister to the letter sent to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), to which he replied, and his reply to a question on 22 February. It is an example of what is happening, which the Minister appears to endorse. A ship leaves Rotterdam with butter and sails to Ipswich docks. Dockers unload the vessel, the goods are left on the quay, and two days later, they load it on to the same vessel and it sails back to Rotterdam.
The Minister, in defence of that, said that the traders are entitled to take advantage of the system. He said in his letter:
Following the recent decline of sterling, pre-fixation of the monetary compensatory amounts is currently a benefit to UK exports. Provided export from the UK takes place it is immaterial whether the goods originated in the UK or were previously imported from another part of the common market; and whether they go to their destination directly or via another Community port.
In other words, he investigated the case and decided that the traders were entitled to do that. His letter continued:
I assure you that if there was evidence of abuse of the system, it should be—and would be—investigated.
Nobody is saying that that practice is illegal. We are saying that such trans-shipment enables exporters to make so much profit that they can afford to hire a ship, load it, unload it, and then load it again.
Do not forget that that case concerned the export of butter. Who pays for that?—the British taxpayer. Yet the Minister said that if there was evidence of abuse it would be investigated. I suggest that he investigates the whole matter now. If such practice is not illegal, it is most certainly an abuse.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks during the past five minutes. I understood him to say that he would welcome more production from Britain. He then said it might be cheaper to buy food on the world markets. If the Labour party intends to pursue such a policy, what good news can he today give to our farmers and the British consumers about such a scheme?

Mr. Buchan: I want to spend two or three minutes on that point towards the end of my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer now."] I can certainly do that if Conservative Members want to hear me say it twice. I had better do so, as they need teaching. If we took advantage of buying cheaply on the world markets, two things would follow. First, we would be in a position to deal justly with the consumers. Secondly, we could protect our farmers' incomes by operating a system of deficiency payments and guaranteed prices. The Common Market practice is costing the consumer, the farmer and, above all, the taxpayer.
We could assume that a commodity enters Britain at the price of "X". However, rather than that, let us assume that we have established a deficiency payment of "X". The product enters at X-20. We could do two things with that "20": we could benefit the consumer or we could impose an internal import levy which would provide revenues to pay for deficiency payments.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): That is what the Community does.

Mr. Buchan: No; it does precisely the contrary. An internal levy would give resources to help with deficiency payments, and the guaranteed payment would remain as "X".

Sir Peter Mills: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. How can we buy products for consumption in Britain from the cheapest world markets if we have full production? That cannot be done. Something will have to give.

Mr. Buchan: I am not talking about commodities that are of easy self-sufficiency in Britain. I am talking about taking advantage when commodities are in deficiency. This country produces what it can, consistent with the needs of the consumer and with cost. When we cannot produce 100 per cent., we must import. We should take advantage of such imports rather than there being a loss.
I wish briefly to deal with surpluses. All signs are that the Commission envisages an increase in surpluses. In its papers, it states:
the working hyposethes are as follows:
the new prices will be established on the basis of the prices adopted for 1983–84, with application of the guarantee thresholds.
The document says:
Production will increase and will exceed the guarantee thresholds.
It is expecting an advance and an excess in production. That is why it is introducing a 1 per cent. cutback on cereal and a 2·2 per cent. cutback on milk prices when they go over the threshold. It assumes that surplus will continue.
The Commission is anticipating a surplus production of butter of 600,000 tonnes. During the scandal of the butter market in 1980 surplus production amounted to 280,000 tonnes. It is now anticipating a butter surplus of 600,000 tonnes by the end of this year. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a sensible way of financing an agricultural policy, I cannot agree.
In a written answer of 22 February 1983 about stocks in storage, the Minister of State gave the following information. For wheat, the amount held in storage in 1982 was 2,700,000 tonnes; this year the figure is 6,297,000 tonnes. For barley, the amount in store last year was 623,000 tonnes; this year the figure is 1,500,000 tonnes. For butter, the amount held in store last year was 121,000 tonnes; this year the figure is 336,000 tonnes. The amount of the eight commodities held in store increased, with some doubling and some trebling. That is the end point of this ludicrous policy. It is no wonder that Ralf Dahrendorf, when interviewed on television about the EC, said that his experiences as a commissioner convinced him that
the actual institution is essentially a miserable agricultural policy and one or two frills.
These frills are what has hammered our manufacturing industries, but at least he recognises that it is a miserable agricultural policy.
There are alternatives. There should be the immediate fulfilment of the election pledge given by the Tory party to freeze all commodities in surplus. I am glad that at long last the Tories have moved in that direction, and I hope that they win the battle. We shall be watching closely. There should be a swing of the balance of support from the consumer to the taxpayer because support by the consumer means that the poor pay more. The poor pay considerably more of the proportion of farm support than the rich. The poorest sector of the community pays about six times as much in relative terms as the high income sector. The Government could use direct methods to support less-well-off farmers. The Government boast about the 45 per cent. increase in farm income. We have shown that that 45 per cent. largely goes to the top 13 per cent. of the farming community. The Government could adopt national aids to achieve a better balance and give support to those sectors in need. The Minister dismissed the pig problem in a cavalier fashion. He should reconsider that. It is a serious problem.
Better still, we could leave the system. It is a bizarre system and is fair to neither consumer nor taxpayer. It does not encourage good husbandry in British agriculture. If we were to leave, we would have independence of action. We could have forward planning of production in relation to need. If we were to adopt a deficiency payments system, we could buy where we wished in world markets. We could use intervention where it would be helpful—for example, with potatoes, where it makes sense. We would make it a tax-supported structure rather than a consumer-supported structure. We believe deeply in the necessity of a healthy agricultural economy in order to provide a healthy rural community. The loss of 120,000 farm workers over the past two decades has not helped the countryside. We must find means to get that type of work back into the rural community. Despite what the Minister said about farm wages, a final indictment is that, in a year in which a 45 per cent. increase in farm incomes occurred, the farm workers were awarded only a £6 a week wage increase. There is still a larger number of farm workers having to receive family income supplement than any other group of workers. That is intolerable.
I have spoken at length. The Minister spoke for slightly longer. I did not expect such a tour d'horizon from him, so I have had to follow that. The commissioners' papers sound a warning. They ring the alarm bells strongly. I believe that the people of Europe, let alone Britain, will not long tolerate such a stupid, wasteful and expensive system. It is becoming an incubus on all of us. It has led to little harmony in Europe. It is harmful to international relationships and harmful to the Third world. It must go, and the swiftest and cleanest way is for us to leave.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I remind the House that an important debate on the Scottish parliamentary boundaries follows this debate. It is desired that that debate should begin at about 7 o'clock. In view of the time factor, will hon. Members please bear that in mind?

Sir Hugh Fraser: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West

(Mr. Buchan) on his speech. It reminded me of an attack by a cleg on the mountains of Renfrewshire. The cleg makes a tremendous buzzing noise and has a terrible sting. For those hon. Members who do not know what a cleg is, it is a poisonous cow and horse fly. It is a dangerous thing to have around. The hon. Gentleman's speech will not have given much satisfaction to the British agriculture industry.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does give a good deal of satisfaction. I must congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the robust attitude they have taken to the common agricultural policy. That is of overwhelming importance. Despite the Government's many successes—in the hill farming, the achievement of a Conservative Administration in increasing national self-sufficiency, in improving productivity and the improvement of farm incomes, which increased by 45 per cent. last year but are still lower in real terms than in the 1970s—we are faced today with two problems with the CAP.
The first relates to the CAP budget, to which reference has been made by Conservative Members and by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. Whatever the forecasts are, it will run into immense trouble by the end of this year. Some people are talking about an increase in tax. The Times today referred to a leak from Brussels in which a budget deficit of about £1·2 billion was mentioned. I do not know whether that is true. We are running into immediate and colossal difficulties. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make it clear in the past few days that she will fight every inch of the way any increase in our payments into the CAP. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on that.
A matter of perhaps even more importance is the larger cloud which is appearing over world trade in agriculture. That is the most worrying matter. It besets not only this country, but the whole of the Western alliance. World trade in food amounts to about £300 billion a year. It is 15 per cent. of total world trade at the moment. It is almost as large as the trade in armaments. That is the size of the world trade in food. It is a colossal issue. What is unfortunate is that the EC is being used not as it should be, to try to form with the rest of the world—the United States and world organisations—a harmonious process, but in confrontation politics, which could be disastrous to Western interests.
Europe is now on the verge of an agricultural trade war with the United States. The impact would be alarming. We are looking forward to the Williamsburg conference. The whole thing could be wrecked by a row between the Americans, the Europeans, ourselves and the Japanese on agricultural trade. The matter will not get better because the surpluses that are emerging in the world will be pushed up further by two things—first, the fall in oil prices, which will increase the green revolution; and, secondly, countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela, about which I know a little, are good agriculture countries with a huge potential to redevelop. They will not do so immediately, but in the next year or so they will go back to producing surpluses of food, which will come on to the market.

Mr. Peter Walker: I agree with my right hon. Friend that nothing could be more disastrous for the Western world than a dumping war between the United States and the Community, but I think that my right hon. Friend will


agree that it is not just Europe that has surpluses. The United States also has surpluses. The increase in surpluses in the United States has been greater than the increase in Europe. Government subsidies are substantial. What is needed is an understanding between both sides.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I shall come to some of the points that my right hon. Friend has raised.
Let us be clear. American farmers are jumping up and down because they are getting a thiird of the money value that they received 10 years ago. The American farming vote is immensely important. The fact is that 20 per cent. of total American production is in agriculture. The income of American farmers over the past three years has dropped from $25 billion to a projected $16 billion this year. Do not let us underestimate the force of American feeling on the matter. A major problem faces the West.
I shall give some of the world trade figures. Historically, America claims about 10 per cent. of world trade, which is about £30 billion. American farmers are complaining today that Europe is dumping food on the world market. What my right hon. Friend says is true. America is also subsidising food. Let us look at the difference in the level of subsidy. My figures are from the American Department of Agriculture. They may be right or they may be wrong, but I shall give them.
The Americans are paying $18 billion in direct subsidy to agriculture, and there is a quota system. In Europe there is a combination of direct payments and tariffs that amount to a load of $35 billion on the taxpayer and the consumer. At the end of the day there is no question but that American agriculture, compared with continental European agriculture, is more efficient. For example, the wheat price is 40 per cent. below the European price. The European sugar price is £300 a tonne, whereas the world price is about £100 a tonne.
Let us be realistic about those matters, and make certain that we do something to get it right. Otherwise, at this stage in history, with American-European relations fraught on defence and foreign policy, a trade war on agricultural products will inevitably mean a growth of American isolation from us. That is the gravest possible danger.
In those matters I regret to say that there is a great deal to be said against the way in which the CAP has worked by pressure from a farm lobby in Europe that does not have efficient farmers. It has a lobby of about 4 million farmers who each farm less than 40 acres of land.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his view on cereals and on another product that should be kept down—milk. Undoubtedly European agriculture is becoming more efficient and the butter mountain to which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West referred, which could be 600 million tonnes this year, will be considerably more if there is more efficient farming and better milk production throughout metropolitan France.
The war is already beginning. As Secretary of State Shultz said the other day when addressing Congress, if America were to have a war with Europe on agriculture products, it would be a disaster for the world economy. I could not agree more. It has already begun.
A week or two ago 1 million tonnes of flour was landed by the Americans in Cairo at $25 a tonne below the world price. That is just the beginning of what can happen. There has to be a reform of the CAP to make it realistic and to reflect the best interests of Europeans which it is not and

does not at the moment. It could well go into bankruptcy in the next 18 months because of budget failures, and it will be destructive to Anglo-American and Euro-American relations. I hope that those matters can be put right and that there can be negotiations. I hope that there car be a world programme, perhaps giving away surpluses to the poor countries that really need them, but that is a dubious argument. It can be put right by some form of world wheat council or something like the arrangements made with New Zealand. It must be put right.
Unfortunately, at the moment in Europe an anti-American attitude is growing. People believe that we must shove our exports up. That can be done only by putting Europe's costly agriculture products on the world market with subsidies that fall upon the taxpayer and the Europeans and wreak havoc in world markets.

Mr. Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hugh Fraser: I am sorry. I shall not give way.
Unless there is a reform of the CAP, we must look at an alternative system through which this country and others in Europe can be responsible for their own agriculture policies. We are not a surplus-exporting country. We are not in the same position as some of the other European countries. We are still a food-importing country. The last thing that we want to get involved in is a trade war with the United States, which would be a disaster if all else fails. That can be avoided only by a national agriculture policy that will give our farmers what they deserve as the most efficient farmers and give our people cheaper and equally good food. If we cannot get an agreement with the Europeans to see sense, we must turn back to our own resources.

Mr. Thomas Torney: Before I begin my speech I should like to dispel the feeling that seems to be abroad, through interventions and what the Minister said, that the Labour party in government would not sponsor agriculture, support it or want to see an increase in agricultural production. That is an absolute fallacy. I want to kill the suggestion once and for all.
We would still be prepared to put in taxpayers' money to support agriculture. We would still want to see greater agricultural production. We might have differences with the Conservatives over where the money went, whether it would be to the rich or poor farmer, but it has never been the policy of the Labour party to weaken agriculture or to produce less of our nation's food. We fully appreciate the economic gain to Britain if we can produce more of our food rather than buy so much from abroad. That should be made clear.
The Labour party objects to pouring taxpayers' money indiscriminately into the Common Market to support not just British agriculture but that of France and other countries. That is precisely what we are doing. All of the surpluses that are produced in France and sold cheaply on world markets are partly supported by the British taxpayers. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser). The Labour party utterly opposes using taxpayers' money to support the agriculture industries of other countries.
The motion refers to
the Government's intention to seek an agreement on l983–84 farm support prices and related measures designed to reduce


surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, and to take account of the interests of customers and food processors.
The Minister must know that the French, having established the agricultural make-up of the EC, will never allow us to change the CAP in the way that we want. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone was absolutely right. We want changes in the CAP so that those countries which produce surpluses pay for them and their disposal out of their own taxpayers' money, not ours. The French will not agree to that in a million years. I am sure that the Minister knows that. He must be talking with his tongue in his cheek if he believes that it is possible to change the CAP, because some member countries are concerned only to look after their own interests and are not prepared to help other people.
The milk lake and the butter mountain are just as serious a threat to the United Kingdom taxpayer and consumer today as they were on that unfortunate day when Parliament voted to enter the EC. The tide of milk production in the EC is still rising. That will push the Common Market into yet another budget crisis within a year. Output of dairy products has been rising much faster than consumption. There are 600,000 tonnes of surplus butter and 1·4 million tonnes of skimmed milk powder. Those are not my words. They are those of Poul Dalsager, the EC farm commissioner, at the Dairy Trade Federation conference in London yesterday. We in Britain pay dearly for the sale of the surpluses both through our contributions to the EC budget and through high prices for the consumer.
We have the further restriction of the co-responsibility levy. It does nothing to restrict production in the EC, but punishes the British farmer and consumer, yet we do not contribute to the massive EC surplus of dairy products. It merely allows the French and other farmers to go away scot-free. Indeed, they call the tune. They build up the surplus while we in the United Kingdom must subsidise it and pay for its disposal.
Milk production in the EC is increasing at a nightmare rate. Only two months into 1983 we have spent several hundred million pounds above the budget on stocking and subsidising exports of dairy products. If that trend continues as the dairy season gets under way, the 1983 farm budget might be more than £1 billion overspent. We also have the problem of EC-produced UHT milk and the European Court's decision which threatens our daily doorstep delivery.
I was pleased to hear the Minister speak of his support for our doorstep deliveries. These deliveries sell a lot of milk. Without them, United Kingdom milk consumption would fall still further and a considerable amount of unemployment would be created in the dairy industry and its allied industries. The milkman provides a free social service every day. That is a vital point when we consider the surpluses. I wish that the Minister had spent more time dealing with it. What are we to do about the surpluses and the mass of the EC budget that is spent on the CAP? Does the Minister really believe that there is likely to be agreement to change the CAP to the advantage of Britain?
I understand that the European Commission has launched a £4,000 million programme to help poor regions of the EC. That will involve a six-year investment programme. The mass of the money, which is to be

provided by EC taxpayers—that includes the British taxpayer once again—is to be spent on a CAP that is wasteful for Britain.
The countries that are to join the EC are predominantly agricultural. Most of their agriculture is inefficient and they will gain from the programme that I have described. What is more important is that they will contribute to the already massive surpluses in agricultural commodities. Greece will receive 38·4 per cent. of the money that is spent under that scheme. Italy is to receive 44·5 per cent. and even France is to get 17·1 per cent. France is not a poor Mediterranean country, but perhaps a little of that country borders the Mediterranean. The plan calls for the spending of £250 of EC money on each of the 6 million Greeks involved, £53 on each of the 33 million Italians who are covered, and £56 on each of the 17 million French who live in the area involved. No one could ask for a greater indictment of the straitjacket that the Common Market imposes upon us.
If we could reform the CAP in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone we might be able to remove that straitjacket. However, we know that it is impossible, because the French would never agree to such a change. The Minister must know in his heart of hearts that there can never be agreement on the changes that we need. The obvious answer to the problem is to get out of the straitjacket, leave the Common Market and look after our interests as the French, to the detriment of everyone else in the Community, look after theirs.

Mr. Eric Deakins: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the devastating figures that he has just quoted are as nothing compared with what they will be when, as we all hope, Spain and Portugal are admitted to the EC. Not only will the costs of the CAP and that part of it concerned with Mediterranean products increase substantially, but the pressures within the enlarged Community will be even stronger against any reform of the CAP.

Mr. Torney: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I tried to emphasise that danger when I quoted the figures.
As the previous Minister for Agriculture told us many times, food is meant for eating. We should look after the farmer by all means, but we should sell surpluses to our people cheaply. That is the way to get rid of surpluses. Today the CAP is as bad as it was when we entered the Common Market. That is enough reason in itself for Britain to leave the European Community.

Mr. Robert Hicks: The House will not be surprised to learn that I take a completely contrary view to that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney). The answer to Britain's economic ills and the future of our farming industry does not lie in the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Community. One reason why British agriculture has not suffered to the same extent as other sectors of our economy during the world recession of the past three years is that we are members of the EC. The CAP has been much criticised, not least in Britain and in the House, and in some ways deservedly so. However, it is important to emphasise the fact that the CAP has been successful not only in ensuring continuity and regularity of supply of


farm products, to the advantage of both the producer and the consumer, but in contributing to the economic and social stability of the countryside.
The proportion of the Community budget absorbed by the CAP in recent years has fallen from 80 per cent. to 63 per cent. That is an encouraging development, and it should be remembered that the CAP contains not only the price guarantee component—the major part—but a social support element, a rural development fund aspect and an overseas aid dimension. If those three elements could be separated formally and financially quantified, some of the criticisms currently aimed at the CAP and its financing would be removed.
This afternoon the main complaint about the present system has been the open-ended commitment to the producer, irrespective of market requirements. I accept that production for intervention is neither sensible nor economically sound. Indeed, it is wasteful. The remedy is to have greater national financial responsibility for the production of surpluses by the country involved when a product is in surplus both in that country and in the entire Community. We should work in that direction, but, as I have said many times in the Chamber, it will require considerable political will. If the financial resources of the Community become scarce, this proposal may be provided with another stimulus.
However, there is the added dimension that, whereas hitherto the CAP was effectively the only common policy in the Community and was therefore the anchor point, that is no longer true. Other Community policies are being developed, and there may be a willingness in the Community to adopt a more flexible approach to the fundamental position of the CAP.
Much attention has been paid to the recent Ministry of Agriculture review, which suggested that farm incomes had increased by 45 per cent. Concurrently, the Commission proposed increases in common prices of 5·5 per cent. Those average and global figures conceal real regional variations in the United Kingdom and differences between different sectors of production in agriculture.
The recent report of the agricultural unit of the department of agricultural economics at Exeter university suggested that one in six farms in south-west England failed to earn sufficient money to cover its costs in 1981–82 despite the sharp increase in farm incomes. The survey covered 265 farms of varying types and sizes in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset, so it represented a genuine cross-section. Agriculture is a key industry in the southwest region's economy. This report is significant, because the hard evidence that it produces puts in perspective the position on the ground compared with the possibly false impression given by the widespread use of the 45 per cent. figure that was quoted in the White Paper. In this context, the Minister was correct to point out that farming incomes in real terms had still not returned to the levels of the mid-1970s.
I shall make two specific points. As the Minister knows, I have become increasingly worried over the years about the imbalance that has evolved in this country between the livestock and cereal sectors. I recognise the reasons for that trend, but I cannot believe that it is in the long-term interests of the country or of British agriculture.
In the south-west we grow the best natural grass in the world. It is ludicrous to have a system which encourages the development of cereal growing further west each year.

That is why I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that he supports no increase in cereal prices, and I hope that he will be successful in his discussions.
I welcome the continued support given by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State to our hill areas. They are the source of young livestock and form an essential part of United Kingdom farming. In the wider context, it is important for the House and the nation to recognise that the prosperity of hill farmers determines the quality of the landscape in the upland areas. If they were neglected, they would be less attractive for other uses, such as tourism and recreation.
I believe, therefore, that it is necessary to ensure that we retain a prosperous agriculture in our hill areas so that a policy of sensible, multiple land use can continue. If we achieve that objective, the chances of conflict in the hill areas between the various users and interests will be minimised.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It is amazing that after 10 years in the European Community we should still be arguing about the advantages and disadvantages of our membership. I believe that, despite the flaws it the present agricultural policy, we were wise to join and would be wise to stay. When one considers the tremendous variety of farming methods, the huge number of farmers and the variety of food produced, the enterprise should be seen as a great achievement. I declare my interest as a farmer and vice-chairman of one of the marketing organisations.
It is important to remember that we have a supply of food. We need never go short. When great capital is made about surpluses, which in many cases amount only to some 10 or 15 days supply, critics should reflect that it is far better to have a surplus than a famine.
We should compare our plight within the EC with the plight of others throughout the world.

Mr. Marlow: What about our "plight" before the CAP?

Mr. Howells: The NFU has sent background notes to many hon. Members. It is wise to remind ourselves that
Today, in 1983, the world population is around 4,500 million and it is expected to be around 6,000 million by the turn of the century—less than 20 years away.
We are not meeting the problem of increased population. It is becoming worse. At the beginning of the 1980s the average African has 10 per cent. less to eat than he had at the beginning of the 1970s.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: From where does the hon. Gentleman get those figures?

Mr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman listen? He has had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Taylor: What is the source of those figures?

Mr. Howells: There are 300 million hungry children in the world—more than the population of the EC, the United States of America or the Soviet Union.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure and tells us that African children have 10 per cent. less food. What is the source of that figure? The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are constantly quoting figures about Africa and Asia and I do not know where they obtain them. Where did he get the figure? Whose figure is it? Where is the authority for what he has said?

Mr. Howells: As I said, it is a background brief from the NFU. If the hon. Gentleman doubts the figures, it is his duty to have a word with the organisation that produced the document. The world's farmers will need to double their production to keep pace compared with the 1960s.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Hon. Members: The hon. Lady has just come in.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate except when I was called out. I have listened to nearly all of the debate. I have just returned from discussing with African countries the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We were not given that precise figure, but we were given some horrifying figures of the hunger that prevails in those areas. It is up to us to help supply those needs.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being on my side for once.
I want to deal with those who have complained that food prices have soared during the past few years. During the past four years food prices have increased by 43 per cent. compared with a 61 per cent. increase for all retail prices. It is a wonderful achievement. The food share of the nation's import bill has been cut from 30 per cent. in 1960 to 12 per cent. today.
I believe that the Government made a misleading statement when summarising the state of the industry in the White Paper. It is bound to be taken out of context and repeated with glee by opponents of farming and the Common Market. The phrase that has already been widely quoted is:
Farming income alone is forecast to rise by 45 per cent.
I do not doubt the figures, but, as we all know, statistics can be used to prove any point. Over the past eight years farm incomes have increased, according to my calculations, by only 12·5 per cent. It is an average over the eight years of 1·5 per cent. per annum. Overall, we have not done very well during the past eight years.
I note also from the White Paper that during the years of Tory Government farmers fared worse than they did under Labour. That is an interesting fact for us to contemplate. However, the figures show beyond doubt that both the major parties, when in government, have completely failed to encourage agriculture to produce to its maximum capacity. The Tory Government have a record of being the farmer's friend, but it is no longer true, if it ever was. They have failed to bring in long-term planning to provide a secure basis for the industry, and one sector after another has suffered as a result.
An overdue policy change is in the presenting of the annual price increases. Instead of awarding a percentage increase across the board—whether the figure is 5 per cent., 10 per cent., or 20 per cent.—as it is at present, there should be selective increases that correspond to the needs of each sector so that, for example, dairy producers in a lean year are awarded a higher percentage increase than, say, cereal growers who have had a successful and profitable yield.
A better system should be worked out for our surplus food. We all deplore waste, particularly when we know of people starving in other parts of the world and of old people or children in poor families who are in need. It should not be an insurmountable problem to devise a

scheme that ensures that some of the surpluses are channelled into cheap provisions for the elderly and needy in our midst, and to the poor in the Third world.
Surpluses of milk should be supplied to our schools. This is a better way to deal with milk surpluses than the co-responsibility levy, which penalises dairy farmers for being too efficient. I am all for co-operation and co-responsibility, but applying a levy is not a fair way to solve the problem.
I know that the right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches are worried about the plight of pig farmers but do not like to come out and say that they are in favour of a deficiency levy. I should welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government will take steps to alleviate the difficulties of pig producers. It would greatly ease the problems if deficiency payments could be reintroduced to correspond with those operating in the beef and lamb sectors.
I should also like the Minister to clarify the position on the proposals for the less favoured areas. According to recent reports in the journal Farmweek, United Kingdom proposals for the extension of less favoured areas have not been submitted to the European Commission. I hope that the Minister will clarify this. Farmweek is subtitled
plus Farmers Journal, the official organ of the Ulster Farmers Union".
On Saturday, 19 February 1983 it said:
Mr. Taylor who is also an Assemblyman on the agriculture committee affirmed that United Kingdom proposals for extension of the less favoured areas had NOT been submitted to the European Commission in Brussels.
No less a person than European Commissioner for agriculture, Poul Dalsager, has told Mr. Taylor that he had still not received any application, or any submission, to the EEC from the United Kingdom government on LFA extensions!
The Ulster MEP also said that Dalsager stated that even if a submission was made the European Commission could take no action. This was impossible until the national government, in this case Westminster, undertook to fund their share of costs incurred by LFA extension.
With regard to the increases that are proposed this year, I am sure that hon. Members and right hon. Members will agree that whether the dairy producers of this country receive a 5 per cent. 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. increase, of suffer a 5 per cent. decrease, they will produce more next year than they did this year if the climatic conditions are as good as they were in 1982. The dairy farmers have geared themselves to produce, and produce more they will. Within the next 20 years we shall be overproducing milk not only in this country but in Europe. However, as we have had only a 1·5 per cent. increase every year for the past eight years, our farmers are entitled to substantial increases this year. I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that he safeguards the interests of the agriculture industry in 1983.

Sir Peter Mills: I begin by declaring an interest. The farmers with whom I am concerned had quite a good year last year.
I cannot understand what the shadow Agriculture spokesman was getting at in his speech. I wish that he was in the Chamber. I cannot understand, and I have been in the House for many years—

Mr. Mark Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is absent


because there is material in next week's business that requires him to be present elsewhere. His absence is in no way disrespectful to the House.

Sir Peter Mills: The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) must not be so sensitive. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I am simply saying that I wish he were here so that I could make my remarks to him direct. The hon. Member for Durham should calm down. There is no problem.
I have been in the House for many years and listened to many agriculture debates, but what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said today confused me greatly. I cannot understand how one can have imports and increased buying all over the world when there is self-sufficiency in this country. Something is bound to give. It will be farmers' incomes. If that is what the Labour party wants, it should say so, and everybody will know.
Often, although not today, the Labour party says that it wants cheaper food for the consumer. However, it is against intensive methods of production. Over a five-year period, it will phase out some of the intensive methods. I do not understand that, and I am confused. The Labour party goes on about farm workers' wages, which it wants to see increased. I also want them to be increased. But the only way to achieve an increase is for the returns to farmers to be increased so that increased wages can be paid. The thinking of the Labour party on agriculture is confusing.
The rural scene and the EC farm price proposals are connected. I can understand my hon. Friends who are so critical of the Community and of the CAP, but I detect a bias against the rural areas in what they say and what they criticise. The rural scene and profitable agriculture are very important. To be fair, agriculture has had a good year—but not all sections, as has been said. The pig and poultry sections have had difficulty.
We must remember—particularly urban Members—that at least one third of the improvement in farm incomes this year has been due to the good weather, for which we should be thankful. That shows how dependent British agriculture is on the weather. Other industries do not have to deal with that problem, except perhaps the outside catering industry, hotels, holiday resorts and fishing. There is no second chance in British agriculture. Once one has a crop in, if the weather goes against one, there is no second chance to retrieve that crop. That is not so in industry or in other sectors of the community. Therefore, our urban friends and those opposed to British agriculture and its prosperity should remember the tremendous role the weather plays in getting the production that seems best for the consumer.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of net farm incomes and agricultural returns, will he comment on the alarming increase in bank indebtedness of the industry, which is a point of great significance?

Sir Peter Mills: It is indeed. It has gone up to hundreds of millions of pounds. It just shows what it is costing the farmer to produce the food, provide the modern equipment and do all the other things he has to do to produce the food for the nation. It certainly is costing agriculture a lot. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in putting me right on that.
Because agriculture plays such an important role in our economy—it is a success story, and would to goodness other industries were as successful—the need for sustained recovery is essential. That is the second point that I want to make. It is important, in my view, for both the consumer and the industry, let alone the farmer, that that recovery should continue, and the price review should be looked at in that light. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) that there has got to be a very big increase in the end price to the farmer. That would only make the surplus problem even worse. We must have moderation.
My third point is that in this price review out policy must be "Up horn and down corn." That is a simple way of putting it, but there is no question about it. The balance is wrong. This is very serious, and I believe that it will have even more serious implications if we go on in this way. After all, one of the problems of the pig and the poultry industries is the high price of grain. Therefore, the pig and poultry producers have to pay considerable sums of money for their compound feeding stuff; while the cereal farmers benefit. I am a cereal farmer. Therefore, I benefit. However, this is having an adverse effect on the pig and poultry industries. That is an unhealthy balance, and an unhealthy structure in British agriculture is developing.
British agriculturists and dairy farmers have a wonderful record—none more so than those in the west country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) rightly said, we grow the best grass in the country. I would only say that I think that Devon produces better grass than Cornwall, but both areas produce first-class grass and therefore first-class milk.
It is obvious that there is overproduction of milk in the Community, but I do not believe that the solution to this problem is to increase the end price this year. We need to do away with the co-responsibility levy as quickly as possible. It is a tax on the consumer. It is unfair to the producer, and it is a levy against the United Kingdom producer in particular. It is wrong that this should continue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make strong efforts during the discussions in Brussels to ensure that the co-responsibility levy is done away with. This would be a help to the producer and, above all, to the consumer, who would benefit considerably.
Even more important, there is a 3 per cent. fall in liquid milk consumption, and this might help to prevent that fall continuing. We need consumers to drink more liquid milk—not this horrible UHT. Let us have milk straight from the cow so that people can appreciate that A is a good, healthy product.
My final point concerns pigs. A very serious problem is developing. We should be perfectly frank and say to pig producers, unpleasant though it may be, that, with a 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. increase in the number of sows breeding twice a year with an average of eight or nine pigs a litter, there are bound to be problems. We are already producing 100 per cent. of the pork market and about 43 per cent. of the bacon market. This is a serious problem, so we must ask them not to increase the number of sows. We should ask them, too, to go for exports, with all the advantages that there are, to take advantage of the new storage scheme and, above all, to produce better quality bacon.
I have been criticised for what I have said in the House about the quality of British bacon. I am not repentant.


Charter bacon is first class, but it is not universal. Only about 50 per cent. of all British bacon is charter bacon. The rest is very poor. If British pig producers want to regain that market—I believe it is not so much their fault as the curers' fault—we need to produce the right sort of pigs.
I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at any suggestions that come from the pig industry to help in this difficult situation, particularly assisting in marketing, and perhaps in exporting and storage. Further aid there is the right way forward, but there must be discipline in keeping the number of sows at about the level of a year ago.
I am always proud to speak about British agriculture. It is an object lesson to many industries. Of course it is helped and well looked after, but that is right and proper, as farmers maintain the rural scene so cheaply and effectively for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I appreciate the support given by the hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) for a large successful and expanding agriculture industry in this country, but I hope that he will reconsider the suggestion that hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a different view on the operation of the common agricultural policy are somehow biased against the rural areas, particularly if they happen to represent urban areas. My hon. Friends are well able to take care of themselves, but I think that it would be unfortunate to introduce that sort of approach into our debates.
This annual debate on the European Community's proposed increases in agricultural prices has for many years been the one debate in the House in the year on the general state of our agriculture. It is unfortunate that it is becoming a half-day dabate on a Thursday, because the industry deserves a great deal more than that. It may well be that this has arisen because the industry has done rather better in the past year than it has in previous years, but it is already clear from this debate that half a day is not adequate.
How well has the industry done in the past year? In this context I find myself in fairly broad agreement with the Minister. The sectors that have done well in previous years, such as cereals, have again done well, and milk has done rather better than in the past, but the pig and poultry sectors continue to languish and we have lost productive capacity, jobs and valuable output there.
It is also the case, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in response to my intervention, that the recovery in investment, significant and substantial as it has been compared to the last two years, still falls a long way short of the level of investment in tractors and other farm machinery during the last two years of the Labour Government. Thousands of jobs have been lost over the last two years in these important industries in the agricultural economy and we still need a significant increase in investment to get us back to the position that existed towards the end of the period of office of the Labour Government.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) raised the issue of the proposed extension of the areas designated for assistance under the less favoured areas directive and the idea that there should be a separate zone of assistance for marginal farming. As the Minister

of State will know, this was initiated by the last Government and many of us had hoped that at the very minimum a decision would be taken by the Council of Ministers on this issue in the context of the price fixing proposals. It is not part of the price proposals, but, as the Secretary of State knows, often these negotiations are a horse trading session in which all sorts of things are thrown in. I hope that the Minister will have something to say on that.
Although we have seen a sharp increase in farm incomes, that has not been reflected in the incomes of farm workers. I admire the Secretary of State for speaking at some length on the position of farm workers. That is a change, because in the past he has not said very much about them. He is right to point out that farm workers' wages have risen in real terms to a greater extent than under the Labour Government. Under the Labour Government farm workers did well out of the first phase of the incomes policy, but subsequently it operated against them. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is fully justified in making the point that they have done marginally better under this Government.
That does, however, not alter the fact that the gap between the wages of farm workers and those in other industries is deplorably and indefensibly high. As a nation we continue massively to underpay our farm workers. When we abolished the insecurity of the agricultural tied cottage I believed that that would increase farm workers earnings by increasing their bargaining power locally and giving them greater leverage to enhance the gap between their earnings and the minimum wage. That has not happened to the extent that many would have liked. However, it may be a factor in the improvements that have taken place in earnings.
The national pay group of the Transport and General Workers Union and the agriculture industry generally are worried about abuse of the youth opportunities programme, and perhaps that worry will extend to the Government training scheme. At the time of the last wage-fixing, a deputation, of which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was a member, spoke to the National Farmers Union about farm workers' wages. That deputation was told that the union wanted to cut the wage of young farm workers because they could get workers on the cheap on the youth opportunities programe. It was spelt out almost as blatantly as that. The position of farm workers is worrying. The figures show that the number of full-time workers is falling while the number of part-time workers is increasing, and that is wholly unsatisfactory.
We can argue until the cows come home about the effect of the CAP on prices. The farm gate price accounts for only about a quarter of food prices. If one looks at what has happened to food prices since we joined the EC, one sees that the component of that increase that is directly attributable to the CAP is relatively small. It is certainly much smaller than other factors. The level of support prices, particularly for commodities such as milk and especially cereals, is pitched at too high a level. That is the overwhelming reason why we have grotesque surpluses. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures, but they referred to previous years. There is no doubt that we are seeing severe build-ups in the surpluses and the grotesque cost of the CAP. It is a grotesque and wasteful system for supporting agriculture on the Continent and even more so in Britain.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) rightly pointed out the effect of that on world trade and on developing countries. The hon. Member for Cardigan talked about the CAP helping the developing world. Any benefit that the developing world gets from food aid is massively outweighed by the damage done to the developing world by the CAP to commodities such as sugar. That was the case under the Labour Government, but then the EC was not part of the international sugar agreement, and that is still the case.
When we discuss this with our Socialist colleagues in the Community they argue that they want to support agriculture because of high unemployment and agriculture workers have no other jobs to move to, but when it is put to them that the money that is spent on the CAP could be better spent on creating work in other sectors of the economy they are forced to agree. Even given the French Government's desire to reduce unemployment—to some extent they are doing so—the CAP is not the most efficient way to spend taxpayers' money.
It is sad that whereas when the Government came to power the Secretary of State spoke about the need to reform the CAP—for example, when he spoke in Cambridge in 1980—his tune has now changed completely. When he was asked last month about his policy on the reform of the CAP, the word "reform" was dropped completely from the reply and he talked about the operation of the CAP.
The Government have been bought off by the budget concession that the Prime Minister obtained. I do not criticise the Government for using agriculture price fixing to secure concessions in the budget—that is the only lever that we have—but, sadly, it means that instead of taking a principal stand on the need to reform the CAP, so desperately needed by Britain, Europe and world trade, they have abandoned any real role in the context. They are happy to have been bought off by concessions such as the sheepmeat regime, which is satisfactory for our industry, but is hugely costly in relation to the benefits that it brings.
Labour Members support an expanding British agriculture industry. The Labour Government's record compares favourably with that of any other Government in terms of the advances and output achieved. However, we recognise that the CAP is a most inefficient way of supporting our agriculture industry. The whole system of intervention is wasteful. It is difficult to see how Tories can defend the open-ended commitment to state buying. However, we support our agriculture.
One reason—many would argue that it is the most important one—why we have such a successful agriculture is our research and development, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us. That has undoubtedly made a tremendous contribution over the years and it is sad that real cuts are now beginning in that area. We could do much to help the developing world and to increase our agricultural production, but instead we are cutting back on research and slashing expenditure generally. That is bound to have a significant effect on the performance of British agriculture if it continues in the years ahead.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: There is a great deal of enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor to take charge of difficult industries where there are serious economic problems. I wonder whether those who have argued so

forcefully for Mr. MacGregor to take over the coal industry after the steel industry have considered what his impression would be if he were put in charge of the CAP. Certainly if he had approached the problems of steel in the same way as the CAP we would not have closed any steel mills but would have the ideal position of high production and increased productivity so long as we charged a price which was twice that of elsewhere and so long as we gave a guarantee to all steelworks that we would buy all the steel produced irrespective of whether anyone wanted it and so long as we agreed to spend vast sums of money dumping that steel abroad at knock-down prices.
Frankly, the CAP is not only a costly nonsense but stands against all the principles of Conservatism and all the things that the Prime Minister has so valiantly been fighting to win for Britain.
There is no doubt, or the basis of the answers which the Minister so kindly and agreeably gives me, that CAP prices are about twice world prices and, in the case of sugar, three times the world price. Even though he may try to identify particular percentages—10, 20 or even 30—the plain fact is that the CAP prices are double what they are elsewhere and, in the case of sugar, about three times.
There is also no doubt whatsoever that we can mislead ourselves by talking only about the food price index because the index is made up of many items, some of which are covered by the CAP and some of which are not. To save time, I will merely say that I have asked the Food Manufacturers Federation to break down the CAP and non-CAP foodstuffs and its analysis shows, by and large, that the CAP foods have gone up about twice as much as the non-CAP foods. Full details are available in the letter I have in my possession.
The real problem is the disposal of surpluses. I was horrified to hear the total irresponsibility of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who is obviously out to please farmers in any way he can and to blazes with the consequences. He said it would help to dispose of the surpluses to give them to poor children in the Third world. Is he not prepared even to consider that part of the problem of poverty in the Third world arises because the Common Market countries are dumping food there at such ridiculous prices that these poor people are unable to earn a living? Much of the problem of poverty in the Third world has been created by irresponsible food dumping. We should be aware that, while we have been taking part in this debate, the Common Market has spent over £1 million to subsidise the dumping of cheap food abroad.
We really should not be talking about the principles of the CAP. What we should be accepting, as the Minister in an extremely encouraging speech rightly said, is that there is a real problem with the CAP now. It will get worse and we have to find a solution. It is rather a waste of time talking about reforming the principles of the CAP because, after 10 years of trying, there is not the slightest indication of any change taking place in these principles. I can see no way of persuading all the countries of the Common Market to agree on a major overhaul. They will scarcely do this voluntarily. As the Minister has understandably and courageously said today, we must try to hold down prices in the hope that this will restrain surplus production. Sad to say, there is not a great deal of evidence that holding prices at their present high level will bring down


production. Far from it. There may be evidence that if we hold down prices we may encourage farmers to increase production still further in order to maintain their incomes.
I was sad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who is normally polite and agreeable, suggesting that those who were against the CAP were opposed to the prosperity of agriculture. He should be aware that many of those who are critical of the CAP are very concerned to secure long-term future prosperity for British agriculture. Many of us care as deeply about farmers and agriculture as he claims to do. It will not help them to be put on a path which will lead to temporary prosperity but long-term disaster.
We may be forced into having quotas of production. If we have Community-imposed quotas, they will be desperately unfair to the United Kingdom and its farmers because we have no problem with surpluses; despite the remarkable advances in production, there is no overall British surplus. There is, however, an appalling Continental surplus. It would be very wrong if our farmers were to be advised to restrain their production because of the problem of surpluses on the Continent.
The alternative would be to get rid of the system altogether and to make, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) suggested in a splendid speech, each country responsible for its own agriculture.
We are in a crisis. The surpluses, admittedly boosted by the good weather, are very substantial and rising fast. They will increase further as production increases further. The solution is either quotas, which would be very unfair to this country, or each country to be responsible for its own agriculture. I believe it would help European unity rather than weaken it if we could work together as a group of nations without this nonsense of the CAP which not only is unfair to the consumer and to the Third world and bad for long-term agriculture but, as a constant source of division between the countries of Europe, helps to divide Europe rather than uniting it.

Mr. William Ross: I have an interest in agriculture and therefore a natural bias towards the welfare of the farming community as a whole, but this evening, rather than discussing agriculture in a United Kingdom context, I want to restrict my remarks to the problems of Northern Ireland where our intensive sectors in pigs and poultry have been very severely hit over the years because we lost the cheap grain imports from North America on which those industries had been built.
Eighty per cent. of the cost of producing pigs and poultry is in feed. This afternoon the Minister drew attention to the problems in Great Britain in those two sectors. The House will be interested to know that in Northern Ireland it is rather worse: they have suffered exactly the same cuts in the sums received for the end price but at the same time have suffered a rise, averaging between £6 and £9 per tonne of feedstuff, which means that production in those sectors is totally uneconomic. Whenever we consider this situation and read in the mass of literature before us that the EC is concerned with the import of cheap substitutes for grain from the far east, our worries about the future are greatly increased.
I listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman's reply when he was asked about the introduction of a pig regime, because he suggested that if the price of pigs were set at a profitable level, because of the great speed with which the number of pigs in the country could be increased, we would have an absolute Everest of pigs. There is no doubt that his assessment of the situation is correct, but the basic principle for any other sector is exactly the same; it just takes a little longer to build it up. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he looks at document 11089/82 he will see that milk product intervention prices should be reduced by 2·2 per cent. That product is in surplus. The reason for the reduction in price is to try to get rid of the surplus. I fear that the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is correct, that decreasing the price only makes farmers produce rather more. So we come back to the old argument about whether we should go for a deficiency system, favoured by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), or keep the present CAP. I fear that the constraints on the CAP are such that eventually the system will break down.
Turning from the great problems of the pig and poultry sectors in Northern Ireland, which will have to be resolved in the near future, to the other problem exercising hon. Members' minds this evening, the less favoured area extension, this argument has been going on for years and years—it must be nearly a grandfather by now—and still we do not have the benefits of the extension. Even if we did have the extension through the Commission, there would be no commitment from the Government to provide the funds necessary to finance it. I wonder whether the Minister, when replying, will be in a position to say whether the Government are prepared to make extra cash available when the thing has actually trundled its way at a snail-like pace through the EC procedures.
The argument about the criteria for extension is far more complex than the upland farmers believe. There are bound to be enormous rows, because wherever the line is drawn there will be a large number of people on the wrong side of it. The question of what is marginal or less favoured does not depend solely on height. There are many other factors. There will continue to be problems with islands of less favoured land surrounded by perfectly fertile soil. I see no way of resolving that, so I believe that we are stuck with the present policy, with all the anomalies that it involves for the less favoured areas.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred to the case prepared by a member of my party, Mr. Taylor. I believe that the quotation was incorrect, as it is clear from an answer by the Minister that the case has been sent to the Commission. The politicians may not yet have seen it, but the officials certainly have and, apparently, have asked for further information. Considering how long it took to prepare the case, I imagine that it was soundly based and carefully thought through. Perhaps the Minister will therefore tell us what questions the Commission is asking. The only meaning that I can attach to this further delay is that someone is deliberately dragging his feet in order to deprive the upland farmers of the benefits of the policy.
There should be no question about the quality of the land in the extension areas as the only thing wrong with the former area was that it was too small, especially in Northern Ireland where a substantial extension is now being requested. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us when the answers will be sent to the Commission as it is vital that the matter should be cleared up as quickly as


possible. The number of beef cattle will undoubtedly continue to decline until the problem is resolved and there is an incentive to produce more stock from the hills. The position in Northern Ireland is extremely serious. The number of beef cows has fallen from 339,000 in 1974 to 202,000 in June last year. I have not seen the latest figures, but that is already a decrease of 40 per cent. There has been a similar decrease in the Republic, so the whole of Ireland—for many years there has been a single market and an enormous amount of cross-border traffic—is in serious deficit. Something must be done about that because, whatever the hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and his hon. Friends may say, we can grow as good grass in Ireland as anywhere; we certainly have enough rain.
We are told time and again of the substantial increase in farm incomes in 1981–82, but the matter should be considered over a longer period. There is cash change, percentage change and real change, and the real change—the pound in the farmer's pocket—is what really counts. In 1973, the net income of Northern Ireland farmers was £54 million. Taking the figures at constant prices, there has been great variation. The figure was £27 million in 1974, £25 million in 1975, £32·5 million in 1976, £38 million in 1977, £32 million in 1978, £15 million in 1979 and only £3·4 million in 1980. An increase of 45 per cent. on that last very low figure is of very little benefit to farmers in Northern Ireland. A great deal more needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) said that individual countries should be responsible for their own overproduction. The Minister must know that he will not get far with that idea as some EC countries depend on agricultural exports to survive, so they will certainly not accept the cut to the level of their home consumption that is inherent in that idea. We should take careful note of the fact that total productive capacity on the Continent is far in excess of present production and far in excess of the amount of food that can be eaten by the people who live there. As a result of the CAP, capacity is bound to increase, with changes in structure, land improvement, fertilisers, new plant and stock varieties, and so on. The problems of overproduction will therefore increase as the years go by.
Finally, the motion takes no account of the interests of the farming community. It
recognises the contribution United Kingdom agriculture makes to the national economy; and supports the Government's intention to seek an agreement on 1983–84 farm support prices and related measures designed to reduce surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, and to take account of the interests of customers and food processors",
but the farmers are not mentioned at all. There is nothing whatever in the motion to give any confidence to the farming community of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As usual, I declare an interest as a small farmer.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's warm tribute to our farmers for their major contribution in the battle against inflation and for keeping our larders filled with first-class home-produced food at prices that the housewife can afford. But for his efforts, the housewife would very soon have been unable to buy English lamb, because our sheep farmers would have gone out of business and our hills would have been abandoned. Three years ago, sheep

farmers in my area were on the verge of bankruptcy. Their plight had been ignored by the Labour Government, but, thanks to the sheepmeat regime secured by my right hoe. Friend, our hills are now thriving again and home-produced lamb is secure. My right hon. Friend has also improved the beef premium scheme, although, to be fair, I should add that this was introduced by a previous Minister who is now in another place.
Our farmers need a prompt settlement of the price negotiations so that the new prices can take affect in April and farmers can plan ahead properly. Most farmers—myself included—dislike intensely the linear co-responsibility levy. I believe that the vast majority would far rather abolish the levy, which is open to abuse in other countries— not here, because we always play by the rules — and have lower milk prices to compensate, which would also encourage consumption, which is currently sagging. However, if the levy is retailed, I hope that my right hon. Friend will strongly oppose any exemptions that militate against our efficient farmers.
I am concerned at the delay in the alteration of the less favoured area boundaries. The marginal farmers have the worst of all worlds. They miss the hill subsidies and lack the hill runs that would enable them to stock up more heavily; they have to take the drainage from the hills, and they lack the stocking levels of the downlands. The new boundaries must be agreed with the Commission as quickly as possible so that those marginal farmers can be helped.
Another matter of concern is the high level of borrowing in the agriculture industry. It has increased fourfold in six years and now stands at £4 billion. Thank goodness the Government's efforts to conquer inflation are now bearing fruit, so that borrowing costs are much less. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said, we cannot always rely on having the weather that we had in 1982. Farmers must have a fair return for their produce so that they can reduce their bank borrowing.
This year the balance between the livestock and cereals sectors must be altered in favour of livestock. There is a tremendous market to be tapped in Europe for our agriculture exports. The industry is to be congratulated on its efforts—not by any means without considerable encouragement from the Minister, who also is to be congratulated—to improve our export performance. The conference held at the Barbican centre two weeks ago and the Food from Britain and Naturally British exhibitions are evidence of a greater awareness of the importance of marketin.
I wish my right hon. Friend well in his negotiations. I am sure he is more than a match for Madame Cresson.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the dying minutes of the debate I shall not detain the House long. It is unfortunate, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, that our annual debate on agriculture has to be crushed into three hours on a Thursday afternoon. I hope this will not be a precedent that the Government will follow in future.
The Minister opened the debate fairly with an assessment of the agriculture industry. I shall not follow him in his coverage of each commodity. I shall concentrate on those areas that are doing less well. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say to give satisfaction to the


pig or poultry-producing section of the industry, or to encourage those in the glasshouse industry. Nor did he have anything to say about the prospects for those in the top fruits industry when the European Community is enlarged to include the Mediterranean countries.
It will be more the dogs that did not bark that will be noticed. The Minister's speech was largely a self-congratulatory performance of the kind with which those of us who follow agriculture have become familiar over the years. It is a pity that the Minister did not take the opportunity to speak on his forward thinking. He did not enlarge at all on how he sees the European Community tackling the undoubted problems of surpluses.
No doubt in the Minister of State's reply the opportunity will be taken to say that I have not spelt out at length the policy of the Social Democratic party. May I forestall that by pointing out that it would be impossible to do so in the time that is left to me in the debate.
The Government have made a great strategic error in seeking to link Britain's budgetary aims with the price fixing negotiations, because these are separate matters, and they ought to be kept separate. Britain's budgetary problem will never be resolved by adjustments in agricultural prices. Such an adjustment can be achieved only at the long-term expense of our agriculture. The budgetary problem can be resolved only by the development of other Community policies. Incidentally, I suggest that the time has come for the Government to cease their opposition to the proposals of the National Farmers Union for an agricultural development programme for the highlands and islands and to throw their full weight behind a programme that would ensure that more money was forthcoming from the European Community for our coffers.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the imbalance that is revealed in the annual review set out in the White Paper. Unfortunately, the size of the United Kingdom's beef breeding herd fell in the last year by about 1·5 per cent. Home-fed beef production is expected in 1982 to be about 4 per cent. lower than in 1981. These figures conceal a significant drop in production, particularly in the hills and uplands.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that this year's price fixing ought to lean more towards livestock and less towards cereals. The cereal men have had a bumper year, in part because of the extraordinary harvest conditions, but also because of inducements to produce in excess of what is needed. It is an unhealthy tendency that good grassland is being put under the plough and cereal production is being increased. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that that tendency ought to be resisted.
The picture of incomes, on which the Minister was right to dwell, conceals great differences in the global increases which have been remarked upon. It should be noted that the indebtedness of farmers has risen again to £4,000 million. Although some of that may be attributed to the increase in capital investment, which has for the first time in five years taken a turn for the better, there is still heavy indebtedness, which I fear will lead to increased production where it is not needed.
The long-term problem faced by any British Government in discussions in the Community stems from the fact that farm incomes within the Community, far from

being excessive as has been implied by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), are poor compared with the incomes for the economy as a whole. An index produced by the European Commission, taking 1974 as the base year, shows that in 1982 agricultural income stood at 97 as opposed to 105 for the economy as a whole. Until agricultural incomes throughout the Community match those of the economy as a whole, there will be constant pressure for increased prices. That is a disturbing long-term trend with which the Minister will have to grapple.
When summing up this short debate, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) about avoiding an agricultural trade war. This is a serious issue, and the Government should explain how they propose to tackle it. I believe that the other parties to the potential agricultural trade war are no less prone than the European Community to dump on the market and to give hidden subsidies. That applies to the United States and even to New Zealand in regard to milk products. This calls for negotiation and a determined round table discussion before the talking becomes too tough and damaging to the interests of world trade.

Mr. John Farr: We have had an all too short but interesting debate on the common agricultural policy. It has been interesting to see how Members on both sides of the House have come to different conclusions about how the prosperity of the country either hinges on a strong CAP or does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) produced an effective book recently on the matter.
The best way to answer all the critics of the CAP is to ask oneself what has happened to us under the CAP in recent years—has it been good for Britain, and has it been good for my constituency? Having considered the facts and figures, which show how the Government through the CAP have transformed British agriculture in the past three or four years, I must come to the conclusion that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative.
For instance, we have made remarkable achievements in self-sufficiency in all food consumed since 1976, which has gone up to 62 per cent., and in all indigenous-type foods, which has risen to 76 per cent. of all that we now consume—a rise of 13 per cent. since 1978. Our food prices during the past year have gone up by only 1 per cent., compared with a much greater retail prices index rise. Also, since 1978, there has been a massive increase in labour productivity, which again brings greater efficiency into British farming and agriculture. There has been an increase of 25·9 per cent. since 1978, which is a large increase. Farming income has gone up substantially during the past year, although, as has been said, that was partly due to the weather, and in real terms it is still well below the high level of the mid-1970s, when it was considerably higher.
In answer to those arguments, one might say, "So what?" What strikes one between the eyes—it is something that no one can ignore—is that in the past few years we have increased our self-sufficiency by a staggering amount, but our balance of payments in the same period since 1978 has improved by no less than £1


billion, and our food exports have increased since the mid-1970s from £300 million a year to £2,500 million in 1982. Those facts and figures are good for our constituencies and for our country.
There are many difficulties and faults in the CAP. It is not perfect. One of its faults that critics seize on immediately is the massive surpluses that are building up and that tend to fluctuate. They constitute a real problem. The answer surely is to be found in the motion and that is to back
related measures designed to reduce surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy".
The simple way to deal with a surplus in the CAP is to freeze cereals and all CAP product prices. I am convinced that that, in turn, will have the effect of eroding the surpluses over the years.
If the Government could put into effect a firm policy, as advocated by the Consumers Association and a number of other bodies, including the Dairy Trade Federation, and my right hon. Friend, and persuade the continentals to agree to a price freeze on the CAP, I am sure that the real problems of surplus would erode and disappear. Everything is not quite perfect, even apart from surpluses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, massive inroads are being made by foreign machinery importers to Britain. Also, as I briefly mentioned in an intervention in my right hon. Friend's speech, we have an unacceptably high level of accident statistics on farms. Apart from that, Britain and its agriculture are on the right road with the present policy, which I fully back.

Mr. Mark Hughes: First, I congratulate, through the Minister, those who put on the Naturally British pavilion at the International Food Exhibition yesterday and the day before. It is a delight to go to a trade exhibition and see British food and agricultural products properly put in competition with international exhibitors and winning. I take the opportunity of this debate publicly to thank and congratulate the Naturally British stand.
I wish I could say the same about the speech of the Naturally British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today. What disturbs me is that, in his British myopia, he did not look sufficiently at the major problems facing the Community in its budgeting and in its relationship with the Third world and other parts of the world. It was left to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) to bring us back to the disruption of international trade that the current operations of the Community are producing.
Nor was the Minister's defence of the activities of this Government and the Community in the difficult problems involved with pigs, poultry and the glasshouse industry remotely adequate. No pig producer who reads the Minister's opening speech will feel satisfied that the Minister comprehends, sympathises with or wishes to solve the problems—and they are major problems. The Minister gave no comfort to help to the hardest pressed internal elements of British agriculture. Nor, indeed, did he give sugar producers in the Third world, the cereal producers, the United States Department of Agriculture, or anyone else among our potential competitors an iota of comprehension of the damage that dumping on the Third world—competition with subsidy—can do to international relations on a long-term basis. There was not an inkling

that a trade war in agricultural products between us and the United States had entered the Minister's mind when it came to price fixing. The attitude is: "It is a matter for the Foreign Office to deal with. We have to satisfy our farmers, and when we have done that we shall later deal with our difficulties with the Americans." I find that attitude wholly unacceptable.
As we are so pressed for time in this debate, I shall not repeat all the arguments about the inadequacy of the Community and the CAP. Those arguments have been well rehearsed, and most of us have heard them repeatedly. I only ask why, as this is a debate on specific documents, the Minister spent no time on paragraph 66 of AGRIORG 3, AGRIFIN 1, which is one of the splendid documents that we are debating—No. 4020/83. I quote:
As regards the market situation, the long-term trends remain a matter of serious concern. For several important products, the rate of increase in Community production continues to be higher than the increase in Community consumption; meanwhile on the external markets, despite an active export policy, the Community like other exporters encounters limited possibilities because effective demand is governed by the lack of economic growth and the growing problem of indebtedness on the part of the importing countries. As the Community is a net exporter of a number of agricultural products, it is in its own interests to contribute to the stabilisation of world markets, within the framework of its international obligations.
The other major document—AGRIORG 621—which is the subject of the debate, states on page 21:
If it is to be concluded that the rate of expansion of exports on the world markets will not continue in the medium term, either because of the economic recession or because of intense competition from our major trading partners, particularly the US, then it is clear that the present arrangements still need to be adapted in order to ensure that the increasing production volume available can be disposed either internally or externally, at reasonable prices whilst safeguarding farmers' incomes. As in other sectors of the general economy where the rise in unemployment continues unabated, it will not be possible for agriculture to be shielded indefinitely from the realities of the market place".
I regret the supposition in the Minister's opening speech and in much of the debate that agriculture can, under the common agricultural policy, be indefinitely shielded from the realities of the market place. I regret Britain's membership of the Community because the common agricultural policy represents a shield of unreality.

The Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I compliment the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) on the brevity of his speech. I wish that he had been able to deploy all his arguments because I should have enjoyed dealing with them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Naturally British stand at the food exhibition at Olympia. I was there yesterday and I agree with everything that he said. I was interested, when I visited the stands of other countries, to hear the tremendous praise for this new British initiative. People said that it was better than anything they had seen at any other trade fair. I wish to emphasise that the effort on that stand was not the effort of a single section of the industry. It was a combined effort by producers, marketing boards, co-operatives, processors and others. It is only through such combined efforts that we can achieve a more prosperous future for our farmers and our food industry.
Three areas of concern have been set out in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)


mentioned farm workers. I share his view, as does my right hon. Friend, who expressed his opinion at the commencement of the debate, about the important part that farm workers play in our farming industry and in the records of achievement of that industry.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the way in which, during the past four years, there has been a consistent improvement in real terms in agricultural wages. That delights me. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made a fair comparison between levels of earnings in agriculture and those in manufacturing industry. Since 1972 the gap has narrowed considerably, but that may not be enough. In 1972 the figure was 70 per cent. and it was 80 per cent. in 1982. The Government are pleased with that achievement and I hope that it continues. I pay tribute to our agricultural labour force.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) mentioned pigs. This is one of the problem areas. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the answer is to introduce a deficiency payment system, he does not understand the limitations of that system. In the days when there was a deficiency payment system, the production of pigs was hedged with more restrictions, standard quantities, fluctuations in the degree of support, and so on, than any other sector.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 30 minutes. I have six minutes in which to reply. I do not have time to give way.
There are problems in that area and I wish to work with the industry to try to resolve them. In those areas where the Government can help—they have had discussions with the industry and I intend to continue those discussions—the industry can take advantage of the private storage scheme and the export refunds that are available. This Government were instrumental in getting those schemes introduced in Europe on 1 February, because they realised the troubles that were coming and the problems that were arising over exports. That is why I have had meetings with the industry. If those problems can be resolved, I intend to resolve them.
We must not close our eyes to the fact that the industry can do an enormous amount for itself. It must improve the quality of its produce and its grading and assure the housewife that that quality will be maintained. There is an enormous amount of scope for improvement in the industry and the Government are prepared to work with the industry to try to achieve that.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised the question of marginal land. Our proposals having been lodged with the Commission at the end of December, it put a number of questions to us. It wants clarification and further information, and the Government are providing that. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and those who have raised this issue that the Government will push ahead with this as quickly as possible. We have done a great deal to assist hill areas. In 1982 the Government paid more than £100 million in compensation. That is a large sum of

money. Levels have been increased by 76 per cent. since we took office. Hill cows were a special worry, but the rate of payment is now up by 96 per cent.
The hon. Member for Durham referred to agricultural surpluses. Deficiency payments would give rise to surpluses and standard quantities would have to be introduced. I remind the House of the opposition of the farming community to standard quantities.
The Community is committed to taking 1·3 million tonnes of sugar from the ACP countries at a proposed price for 1983–84 of nearly £264 a tonne, which compares with a world price of £104 a tonne. Therefore, it is wrong to say that through the direct policies of the Community the Government are not showing concern for those countries. During the past 10 days the high commissioners of the ACP countries have been in my office arguing that the price of sugar within the Community should be raised. That demonstrates my point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) raised a major point about the United States. In recent years it has supported its agriculture industry by providing it with just over $12 billion. That figure is considerably in excess of the support that is given within Europe. My right hon. Friend must remember that the Community is still the world's largest single importer of food. It takes about one quarter of the total of world food exports, and about £9 billion-worth comes from the United States.
I agree that it would be an absolute tragedy if the Community and the United States became involved in a trade war, because no side could win. It would be to the detriment of both the Community and the United States. It is encouraging that, during recent years, the Community—for example, in its arrangements with New Zealand—has shown that co-operation between it and the remainder of the world leads to orderly world marketing and proper shares of the market for all concerned.
I appreciate that we need price restraint. That is shown in the price proposals. The Government have practised price restraint since they took office three years ago. Although milk prices have risen by 25 per cent., cereals by 22 per cent. and sugar by 27 per cent., that must be compared with an inflation rate of more than 50 per cent. in the Community.
I have not heard any of those who have criticised the CAP voice any recognition of the reform that has been achieved during recent years. There has been the introduction of thresholds for cereals and milk, so the surplus production does come back on the producer. There has been a tightening of quotas on sugar and the introduction of levies that have enabled the Community to talk about an international sugar agreement—something that we all support.
I should have more respect for what Opposition Members have said if they had shown some recognition of the steps that have been taken to improve the CAP. There is still some way to go, but, with the restraint that we have shown during recent years and the improvements that we have achieved, matters are progressing.
I reject the alternative put forward by the Opposition. They suggested deficiency payments, but did not say how that would deal with surpluses. They suggested that alternative in addition to their policy on nationalisation, the rating of lands, and the devaluation of the pound—which, for agriculture, would be a disaster. For


those reasons, the Opposition have not had the courage tonight to divide the House. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4020/83, together with Addendum 1, Addendum 2, and Addendum 3, on agricultural prices and related measures, 11089/82 on proposals for altering the intervention prices for butter, skimmed milk powder and certain cheeses, 11946/82 containing a report on agricultural markets in 1982, and 4376/83 on aid for seeds in the 1984–85 and 1985–86 marketing years; recognises the contribution United Kingdom agriculture makes to the national economy; and supports the Government's intention to seek an agreement on 1983–84 farm support prices and related measures designed to reduce surplus production, to limit the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, and to take account of the interests of customers and food processors.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
The Boundary Commission for Scotland submitted its third periodical report to me on 18 February. I laid that report before the House on 24 February, together with the draft order designed to give effect without modification to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission about the parliamentary constituencies into which Scotland should be divided. If the draft order is approved in both Houses, I shall submit it to Her Majesty in Council. Article 1(2) provides that, while the order comes into operation on the 14th day after the day on which it is made, the new boundaries will not be effective until the next general election.
When a Secretary of State receives a report from a Boundary Commission, he has a duty under section 2(5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 to lay that report before Parliament, together with a draft order giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in that report. Any decision to make modifications to the recommendations would have to be based on outstandingly good reasons, with very clear justification, because Parliament has decided that the task of reviewing parliamentary constituencies should be placed on Boundary Commissions that are clearly impartial.
In Scotland, the deputy chairman is a judge appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The two members are appointed after consultation with the various political parties. The present deputy chairman, the Hon. Lord Ross, was appointed in January 1977. The present members—Professor Gordon Cameron and Mr. Andrew Evans—were appointed in April 1976. I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for carrying out an extremely difficult and onerous task, which was not made easier by the knowledge that they could not satisfy everyone. My impression is that, although criticisms have been made of certain recommendations affecting individual constituencies and areas, there is general acceptance that the recommendations as a whole are on the right lines.
The Boundary Commission has a duty in a general review to look at Scotland as a whole, and to observe criteria that are not of its own making, but which have been devised by Parliament, although in a way that allows the commission some degree of flexibility. Some may argue that the commission has been too flexible, others that it has not been flexible enough.
The commission, which gave notice of its intention to proceed with its review on 16 February 1978, had to take account of the significant changes arising from local government reorganisation. It decided that, as far as possible, constituencies should not cross regional boundaries and should be composed of electoral divisions within regions. That it succeeded more with the first than with the second may have caused some heartburning in Tayside and Grampian, and possibly other areas, but it would be hard to disagree with the principle.
The commission was faced with divergent views about the best way to divide the region into constituencies. Where it considered that it would be helpful to its consideration of those views, it asked me to appoint assistant commissioners to hold inquiries into proposals or revised proposals in accordance with the normal, precedented practice. The sheriff principals were asked to undertake those inquiries, unless there was good reason why they could or should not. Where that was not possible, eminent counsel were asked to undertake the inquiries. I pay tribute to the way in which the inquiries were carried out and to the clarity of the reports made to the commission. As a result of one of the reports which related to Glasgow, the Boundary Commission decided to depart from its original intention that Scotland should continue to have 71 seats, and to recommend an increase to 72 seats.
I wish especially to stress that in the light of any criticism that may be levelled at the assistant commissioners the relevant recommendations in the Boundary Commission's report are made by the Boundary Commission members themselves, in the light of the findings of the assistant commissioners.
No doubt hon. Members will have points to make both generally and about the changes as they affect their own present or prospective constituencies. One of the tables in the report that illustrates best both the need for the review and the success of the Boundary Commission in equalising constituencies is table 3 of chapter 4 on page 98. It shows that there are unlikely to be any constituencies with an electorate that is more than 20 per cent. above the average, and only a handful with more than 20 per cent. below the average, which will be mainly in the islands and the widespread rural areas.
Of course it is uncomfortable, and sometimes more than that, when boundary changes are made. But the demographic principle makes them inevitable. Appendix G of the report shows, on the basis of the 1982 electorate, seven of the existing constituencies each having an electorate of more than 70,000, while, at the other end of the scale, there are 10 constituencies each with fewer than 35,000 electors. With a range from 105,269 in Midlothian to 17,348 in Glasgow, Central, I do not think that anyone could argue that population changes over the years have not produced a situation calling for a revision, if the principle of broad equality of voting power is to mean anything.
While some may claim that too much attention has been paid to numbers and not enough to geographical considerations and local ties, it would be hard to dispute that it is right that within Scotland each person's vote should, as far as practicable, carry the same weight.
In the debate on the work of the Boundary Commissions earlier this week, it was suggested that it might be desirable to avoid such a wholesale upheaval by having more frequent and general reviews. I can understand and sympathise with that point of view, but there are strong arguments in the other direction. First, it is not long since there were more frequent reviews—in fact, every three to seven years. Indeed, it was only in 1958 that Parliament revised that system by laying down the present period of 10 to 15 years between general reviews. We should not forget that, although there have been considerable population changes since the last

general review, that is not the only, or even the main, reason for the major changes in constituency boundaries now found necessary by the commisions.
To population change there has on this occasion to be added the effects of the major reorganisation of local government that took place during the 1970s. Since that radically redrew the boundaries of local government areas, it had of necessity to be reflected in the new parliamentary constituencies. So we should not imagine that changes on the present scale will be inevitable at the next general review. Although there may be a case for more frequent reviews, there is also a case for more stability in electoral areas. Neither local government electors nor parliamentary constituents—any more than hon. Members themselves—like too frequent changes. So we should not too readily decide that the present system of reviews every 10 to 15 years is unsatisfactory.
The Boundary Commission is of course bound by the rules laid down for it by Parliament, and this was not the only statutory requirement to attract criticism during Tuesday's debate. There were, for example, differences in view on the weight to be attached to numerical and geographical considerations. Criticism was also made of the legal requirement on the Boundary Commission to use the electorate figures for 1978, the year in which it commenced its review. As the report makes clear in paragraph 27, the commission did nevertheless, as appropriate, have some regard to perceptible trends in the electorate, which would quickly produce constituencies above or below the average size electorate, when deciding between alternative schemes. It would appear that the commissioners paid more attention to known changes up to 1982 rather than prospective changes after that date which were obviously more difficult to forecast. This was particularly relevant to areas covering the new towns and also Grampian region where, as the commission noted, it was less certain of the future rate of growth.
It was essentially because of the uncertainty of growth or decline in the electorates that the commission indicated that it would keep under review the boundaries of certain constituencies in Strathclyde region and Grampian region and in other areas where there may be evidence in future of significant increases or decreases in electorates.
Although the next general review may not take place in the next 10 to 15 years, the commission has indicated in paragraph 278 that it will make recommendations when necessary under section 2(3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 in light of significant changes in electorates and also of alterations of local authority boundaries. I mention this to avoid any impression that the constituencies established by this order are fixed and immutable for the next 10 to 15 years, though I should make it clear that it is for the Boundary Commission, and not for the Secretary or State of the Government, to decide whether or when to carry out an interim review.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that this is a convenient moment to ask the right hon. Gentleman a general question. Both for the record and because from time to time the point is made south of the border, will he say why, historically, the position he described for Scotland, that each person's vote should carry roughly the same weight so far as is possible, does


not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why is the average constituency in Scotland so much smaller than that in England?

Mr. Younger: That has traditionally been so for a number of reasons. The principal one is that Scotland has much more widely scattered areas than other parts of the United Kingdom. There are a number of other reasons, but the basic aim is the same north and south of the border.
I conclude by again thanking the Boundary Commission for its valuable work in carrying out its review over almost five years and by commending to the House this draft order which would implement its recommendations without modification.

Mr. Bruce Millan: It is natural that any time the Boundary Commission reports on a major review of this nature there are bound to be hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the final recommendations.
I do not intend to go into the detail of the report, but I do wish to mention one or two points on particular inquiries later in my speech. While clearly not everyone is wholly satisfied with the way in which the Boundary Commission has carried out its work in Scotland, at least the results there do not seem to have aroused quite the same anger as the work of the Boundary Commission for England south of the border. I suppose that we should be grateful for that. I shall have some criticisms to make of the Boundary Commission for Scotland as I go through my speech, but they are set against the background that the commission's job is not easy, and, as I said in the general debate on Tuesday on the boundary arrangements, the rules which the commissioners are obliged to follow, interpret or use as guidelines—whatever the status of the rules may be—are not the easiest to understand.
I made a number of general points during the debate on Tuesday. The House will be glad to know that I do not intend to repeat them at length, because I am sure that all Scottish Members will have read them carefully. Nevertheless, I wish to summarise what I said during that debate.
The rules are difficult to understand, but there is a clash between rule 4, which requires that the commissioners must have regard to local authority boundaries, and rule 5, which deals with obtaining, so far as is practicable, an equality of votes between one constituency and another. Since the rules themselves have been tested in the recent action over the English boundary recommendations and since the Law Lords have decided, in interpreting rules which are basically the same for Scotland as for England, that rule 4 should have precedence over rule 5, for that reason alone the House will have to consider the rules as a whole some time before the next boundary review.
Until now most hon. Members have worked on the assumption that equality of votes has to be the primary consideration. The reviews should mostly be concerned with setting to right discrepancies in the size of electorates which inevitably arise between one review and another. It is rather surprising, to say the least, that we should now be told that adherence, so far as possible, to local authority boundaries is a more important consideration in these reviews than obtaining, so far as is practicable, equality of votes. The fact that that has now been the subject of a judicial decision will presumably have some influence on the next Boundary Commission review in Scotland, as

well as in England and in Wales, unless there is some clarification or amendment of the rules in the meantime. While I realise the special circumstances in Scotland with regard to geographical considerations which, in effect, are dealt with under rule 6, I nevertheless believe that, other things being equal, rule 5 should take precedence over the consideration of local authority boundaries. I hope that we shall be able to consider that some time in the next Parliament, or in good time before the next Boundary Commission review.

Mr. Barry Henderson: While the right hon. Gentleman is thinking about that longer-term indication to the Boundary Commission of how things might go in future, may I ask whether he thinks that we should start moving gently towards the concept of fewer Members of Parliament in view of the major changes that have been taking place in society and communications over the years?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) is volunteering, I do not think that anyone will hold him back. As a general proposition, and to treat the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, I do not accept that. In many respects, greater burdens are now placed on Members of Parliament. Arguments about improvements in technology and communications and so on easing the burdens are not particularly convincing or, at least, are not working in my case. They may be working for other hon. Members. Those are much wider considerations than the ones with which we are dealing tonight.
On Tuesday I drew attention to the fact that there were differences in approach between the English, Scottish and Welsh Boundary Commissions—for example, with regard to overall numbers. The Scottish commission uniquely among the three started with a predetermined total and worked from that. Subsequently that total had to be adjusted. I thought that it was wrong in principle that the commission should start with a predetermined total. That approach is not compatible with what happened in England and Wales. It is worrying that there are different approaches to the interpretation of the same rules in the three countries. That is another argument for looking again at the rules.
There were differences in approach by the three commissions to rule 6—the geographical consideration rule. There were also differences in approach in practical terms as to what the commissions did about movements of population after the enumeration date. It is not clear that any commission is entitled to take into account any change in population beyond the enumeration date. The English commission believes that it is not empowered to take any movement of population into account. That has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction south of the border, because England's enumeration date was 1976. There have been tremendous movements in population since then. The Scottish commission took a more relaxed view. Whether it was entitled to do so is a matter of considerable argument. That should be looked at.
I do not want to go into these matters in great detail as, in a sense, they are for the next review, or for modification of the rules before the next review. The commission's recommendations for Glasgow raised many serious issues that were connected not just with the local situation but with the way in which the commission approached its task. We should look at those matters fairly soon and not wait


until we are right up to a new review when none of us, to be absolutely frank, is completely objective about them. It is better to look at them early in a new Parliament and a long way from the next general review.
I shall refer to one or two points about the procedures of the commission that I mentioned on Tuesday. The difficulty about the commission not having any consultations before producing its provisional proposals is that some of the provisional proposals do not stand serious examination. I think that many hon. Members will take that view. I thought that some of the provisional proposals for Glasgow were foolish and could not be justified. It was difficult to understand how they were produced in the first place. We want to avoid bias in the original proposals. If the commission had said to me, "How do you think we should divide Glasgow?", I would have been delighted to tell it. However, I am not suggesting that. I would have fewer problems than I have at the moment if I had been able to do that.
There are difficulties about preliminary consultation. The present system is not satisfactory. More important, the absence of reasons for the provisional recommendations is a serious fault in the procedures.
I shall refer to my experience. The provisional proposals came out in June 1981. We were asked to make objections and representations by the end of August 1981, which I did. The inquiry was fixed for February 1982. Shortly before the inquiry we had a statement of reasons from the commission. It was not a full statement on the boundaries, but it contained arguments about the total number of seats for Scotland and about how it arrived at the total for Glasgow.
I make two points about that. First, those of us who made representations did so in the dark, because we did not know on what basis the commission made its decisions. We could not direct our criticisms or objections to the commission's reasons, although they were given shortly before the inquiry in a sense as a basis for the inquiry. That is absolutely absurd. My representations would have been differently worded or would have included other material if I had known what I was arguing against. However, we learnt what that was only when the inquiry was due to start.
The procedure has a second disadvantage. Far from objecting to this, I thought that it was extremely desirable. The commissioner in Glasgow—I hope it happened elsewhere—accepted representations right up to the last minute. I have no complaints about that. However, if one puts one's representations in at the last minute rather than at the original due date, one can comment on the commission's reasons and on the other representations which are circulated to all the people who ask to be represented at the inquiry. Therefore, there is an advantage in not putting in representations at the due date but waiting until all the other material is available. That procedure cannot be sensible.
The commission's reasons ought to be published with the provisional recommendations so that we can see why the proposals have been made. At the moment we get the worst of all worlds. We do not know the reasons at the beginning, but suddenly they are given before the inquiry—sometimes in an inadequate form.
I hope that the Secretary of State will look into the matter. It is not a matter for the rules. The legislation does

not compel the commission to give reasons at any stage. Perhaps we should put an obligation on the commission to give reasons.
I have no complaints about the Glasgow inquiry—the very opposite. The assistant commissioner, Mr. Prosser, did an extremely fair job. The inquiry was conducted extremely well. I hope that that was so in other parts of Scotland as well. I have had no representations to the contrary.
However, I must deal with the central region inquiry and the appointment of Sheriff Taylor as the assistant commissioner. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who is not in his place at the moment, and others have made serious criticisms of the Secretary of State and the commission for the appointment of Sheriff Taylor, who earlier in his lifetime was a Tory candidate on three occasions. I hope that this will not be misunderstood. I am making no personal allegations against Sheriff Taylor. I am not complaining about the way in which he conducted his inquiry. If there are complaints to be made, they can be made by others, not by me.
No person who has been a political parliamentary candidate should be asked to conduct such inquiries. It does not matter whether he is Conservative, Labour, or whatever. That is undesirable. The commission says in its report that a non-political person is asked to conduct the inquiries. Plenty of competent lawyers are available in Scotland to conduct those inquiries. It is not necessary to ask the sheriff principal for the area to carry out the inquiry. That did not happen in Glasgow, for example. It is unfortunate if such appointments are made.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not good for politics to say that because someone has been a Conservative, Socialist, Liberal or whatever, he is incapable of making a fair, reasonable and objective judgment.

Mr. Millan: That is not what I am saying. It is not a case of people being incapable of making a fair judgment; it is simply that the object of appointing an assistant commissioner is to put a non-political person in charge of an inquiry. I do not believe that the Secretary of State disagrees with that in principle. One ought to avoid the appointment to such inquiries of anyone who has held a public political position. It was a serious mistake, and I am sorry that it happened. I am not criticising anyone, but the Secretary of State should not have made that appointment. I hope that we will learn from that case and that whoever is responsible for appointments of assistant commissioners to any subsequent inquiry will scrupulously ensure that no one who has held a public political position is appointed. In view of the representations that were made about the assistant commissioner's report, it would have been better if a further inquiry on the central region had been held.
There are other areas where it is difficult to justify the Boundary Commission's conclusions. I do not want to go into them in detail, but I shall simply pick up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made on Tuesday. It is not sensible that reports provide for a general election on the new boundaries at any time after the publication of the order. I believe that the whole House agrees with my hon. Friend that there should be a delay from the time of the order's publication to its becoming effective. He suggested three months. I do not know whether that applies in this instance.
The laying of orders is almost entirely in the hands of the Government of the day. However, I suggest that there should be a delay. I shall not go into the argument whether in this case the Government have rushed the order through. Nevertheless, it is not satisfactory to say that once the order is passed, it is possible to have a general election on the new boundaries within a month. In terms of party political organisation, that is absolute nonsense. We should consider that issue before we have another Boundary Commission review.
Having said that, I do not intend to ask the House to vote against the order. By and large, subject to the qualifications that I have given, the Boundary Commission conducted its work extremely well. We should allow the order to pass without a Division.

Sir Hector Monro: It is not often that I follow the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and agree with nearly everything that he has said. The only exception was his criticism of the inquiry in the central region. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said. Too often we disparage politicians and write ourselves down as being incapable of making decisions in later careers. If one has been prepared to serve the country as a politician under whatever party, there is no reason why that should preclude one from holding high office and taking important decisions in a non-political environment.
Much of the history of the Boundary Commission has been told this week. There is, therefore, no need for me again to relate the important historical events. Like the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Craigton, I pay a warm tribute to the commissioners for the reports that they have produced. They have been extremely well written and lucidly explained. The maps have been most beneficial. That tribute should be extended to those commissioners who have conducted the local inquiries. They listened carefully to the evidence and sifted it. By and large, their conclusions seem to be generally acceptable, although there are some cases that have been hard for those concerned to bear.
The way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the order is very different from what happened in 1969 when orders were laid by the Labour Government and voted down. That should never have happened and I hope that it will never happen again. We have today the opportunity to redress the balance that should have been struck in 1969. Had it taken place then, much less change would be essential now and the process would have been more gradual. The present dramatic changes are necessary because of that failure in 1969.
There are two points which should be discussed constructively today. The first is whether there should have been a predetermined number of constituencies. That is what we understood there to be when the commissioners started their review. The second relates to the heavy emphasis on the phrase
having regard to local authority boundaries.
The commissioners eventually made the case for 72 seats in Scotland. That was against the firm guidance with which we approached the local inquiries. We were told that there would be 71 seats and that, so far as possible, local authority boundaries would not be crossed. Had we

known that those two conditions could have been breached we might have had different considerations during the inquiries.
We will all miss the traditional names of the constituencies and their size. We had grown accustomed to them. There are now only five one-county, one-Member constituencies in the United Kingdom and they are all in Scotland: Inverness, Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, Banff and Dumfries. It is sad that that tradition will go because of what the commissioners have announced is essential.
Until 1918, there were always two Members of Parliament for the county of Dumfries, one who represented the county and one who represented the burghs. Since 1918, there has rightly been just the one, although there was the addition of Maxwelltown in 1948. Since then, the constituency has remained unchanged. As a result of the commissioners' findings, we are now to have a substantial change.
The commissioners set a target of 53,649 voters for each constituency. The anticipated figure in Dumfries for 1982 was 67,183 and for Galloway it was 42,237. The commissioners accepted that the two constituencies were out of balance and decreed that Dumfries be reduced to 57,600 and that Galloway be increased to 51,900—an exchange of 9,500 voters. Galloway now becomes Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.
As I have said, it might have been possible to find another solution had we known that the commissioners were prepared to be more flexible about the boundaries and the total number of Members of Parliament.
With many hon. Members who will lose constituents because of the change, I am sad about losing those whom I have represented for some years, especially those from Upper Nithsdale, Sanquhar and Kirkconnel, which have major unemployment problems, and those from Thornhill and Moniaive. The law states that they must go. I am glad that they will be in the able and competent hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), although in future the constituency will be called Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.
However, eyebrows may be raised about the insistence on numbers and boundaries, because it does not produce equality. We all accept that the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland and Caithness and Sutherland have exceptional geographical reasons for having much smaller electorates than other Scottish constituencies. But it is hard, even allowing for the commissioners' insistence on not crossing regional boundaries, to believe that the two Border seats should have electorates of 36,000 and 41,000 respectively, because they are much smaller than almost any comparable area in Scotland and will be over-represented. The commissioners argued why that should be so, but again the arguments might have been different had we known that there could be 72 or even more seats in the final analysis. A more equitable decision might have been made about the mainland of Scotland, although it would have required crossing some regional boundaries.
We must remember that the regional boundaries were drawn up for the 1973 local government reorganisation, and no one drawing those lines on the map related them to possible changes in parliamentary constituencies in future years. There is too much emphasis on the regional boundaries, and we should have left the parliamentary boundaries much as they are.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says because I was a member of the Royal Commission that produced the draft. At no time did we consider parliamentary boundaries.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman must have been very naive.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to have that confirmation from the hon. Gentleman, who played such an important part in the Royal Commission's deliberations. It may now be too late, but had that information been given to the Royal Commission before it made its inquiries the solutions might have been different.
We accept the proposals, which are a genuine attempt to produce the best solution. On the whole, the commissioners have done a good job and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought the proposals to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Russell Johnston: At the last general election I had an electorate of 62,571, which was the 17th largest electorate of the 71 Scottish constituencies. However, if one leaves out the big four constituencies—Midlothian with 101,000, West Lothian with 85,000, East Kilbride with 78,000 and Renfrewshire, West with 78,000—the other 13 constituencies fall in a band between 62,000 and 68,000, so my constituency is not far down the list.
My constituency's area is the largest not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom. It covers about 4,000 square miles, and I am told reliably that it is 200 square miles larger than Cyprus. As a result of the Boundary Commission's intense deliberations for nearly five years, my electorate will be about 65,000, which is an increase of about 3,000. I have not computed the change in area, but I doubt whether it is much. However, the distance from one end to the other has increased from roughly 240 miles between Inverness to west of Dunvegan in Skye, to about 260 miles from east of Nairn to Ardnamurchan point. The outcome of the commission's labours has given given me a larger electorate that is about 10,000 more than the average size of new constituencies in Glasgow—65,000 against an average of 55,000 in Glasgow—and about 11,000 or 12,000 above the electoral quotient for Scotland. The area is much the same, but transport is more difficult, and because it involves changing a constituency community that has existed for more than 60 years—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made this point—allegiance and association inevitably become more difficult. No one could regard this as an improvement, setting aside entirely my natural sentiment for such places as Skye, which I regret losing.
The entire exercise is based on the assumption that the single-Member constituency elected on a first-past-the-post basis achieves a fair and sensible opportunity for the elector to approach his elected Member and to achieve a reasonable representation of political opinion. It would not be in order for me to present an argument for proportional representation, but I am entitled at least to register my dissent from the system on which I am called to comment.
It is extraordinary that the eminent gentlemen who make up the commission took so long to produce so flawed a document. Paragraph 8 on page 6 of the report states:
We are not required to enter into consultations with political parties, local authorities or any other bodies before formulating

our provisional recommendations. Indeed we consider that these provisional recommendations could best be arrived at without regard to conflicting suggestions. We were thus in a position to be wholly impartial when making these recommendations.
To plagiarise Lord Blake's article on proportional representation in The Times today, this fits well into Bentham's category of "nonsense on stilts".
We have a strange tradition in this country that the only people capable of being objective are those who know nothing about the problem. The tradition stems from a profound suspicion of the politician's capacity to be fair—a matter upon which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) surprisingly dwelt—but I would say, as a minority man, at least so far, that if one put all the party professionals in Scotland into a hotel for a week they would produce a result every bit as good as that of the Boundary Commission after five years of deliberation. Even allowing for the fact that our electoral system can be manipulated—a point made by the right hon. Member for Craigton—and having dealt with professionals in other parties for more than 20 years, I am confident that they would be realistic and I am not afraid of them being unjust. I underline the point that I made in an intervention, which was also made well by the hon. Member for Dumfries, that we do ourselves no good to suggest that politicians of whatever party are incapable of sitting down and reaching reasonable conclusions.
I am considerably dissatisfied with the way in which we communicate our decisions to the voter. Many people took part in the hearings arranged by the commission all over the country to make points about shopping centres, bus routes and what they believed to be the correct shape of their community. The conclusions are now published in these two documents. How does the electorate get them? It goes to Her Majesty's Stationery Office and pays £20. How many punters or ordinary people can do that? My party in Scotland did not receive a copy. I dare say that the press was deluged with first editions, although no one else received them. That is unsatisfactory. I should like to be reminded of what the exercise cost. Party professionals in a hotel in Glasgow or anywhere else might cost a wee bit, depending upon circumstances and the proclivities of the members, but I am sure that they would not cost as much as this.
Thirdly, I object strongly to the timing of the Boundary Commission's decision to increase the number of seats in Scotland from 71 to 72 and to its decisions for so doing. On page 96 of the report it says that it was because of Glasgow:
We maintained this view until we considered the report of the assistant Commissioner on the Inquiry into our provisional recommendations for the City of Glasgow.
That is splendid and bully for Glasgow, but not much use for anywhere else. It is not much use to the highlands or the Grampian area. In both cases the Boundary Commission did not allow sufficiently for the population spread in the highlands or the population dynamics in Grampian.
Witnesses were giving evidence on an incorrect assumption. That was unfair and unjust. My party in the highlands would have given evidence if an extra constituency was an option. The Conservative party suggested an extra seat. The Liberal party, in its radical way, suggested the maintenance of the status quo. We were trumped by the exercise, although we were not opposed to it. We sat down solemnly in private and said, "The Tories have done this; why should not we?" Our


conclusion was that it was improper and was not allowed by the guidelines. There was a great deal of confusion which was not helpful to anyone.
I do not believe that Glasgow had a case for an extra seat. One can practically spit across most of the areas in Glasgow. To demonstrate my objectivity, I say to the right hon. Member for Craigton, that I do not believe that an extra border seat was justifed on sparsity of population. The size of the two border seats is remarkable when compared with others.

Mr. George Foulkes: He is a suicide pilot.

Mr. Johnston: Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is not present.

Mr. Foulkes: He can read.

Mr. Johnston: While witnesses were told that they should not transgress regional or district boundaries, the Boundary Commission appeared to make hay with them all over the place. I was involved in preparing a case for the Inverness Liberal association. We worked out something that meant breaking down district boundaries but decided that it was not acceptable. We ditched the plan. Subsequently, however, we found that the Boundary Commission was doing it all over the place. Greenock is an example of where the Boundary Commission crossed a regional boundary—the Minister looks puzzled, which is fairly normal—to maintain the district council ward boundary. That is unsatisfactory. Inverness is gouged out from two areas—Drumnadrochit and Cannich. In Charleston the Boundary Commission slices a bit off the urban area. It makes no sense.
It is a lesser point but appendix D makes comparisons between 1978 and 1982. The inexperienced punter might say: "This is just before the last election compared to now." It is not. They are the new constituency boundaries in the terms of their 1978 electorate compared with now. There is no proper way, in tabulated form, of comparing the new constituency electorates with the old. That is not satisfactory.
This is the type of debate which I, and I am sure many other hon. Members, find frustrating. We know that there are many things wrong. We are told by the Secretary of State: "Tough luck, nothing can be done about it, and it will not change." We feel still that there are some matters that should not be changed. If it is the Boundary Commission's aim to create roughly equal constituencies where the opportunities for the electors and the burdens on the Members of Parliament are equivalent, it has not succeeded.

Mr. Bill Walker: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, particularly with his view that politicians, or anyone who has even been involved in politics, should not be excluded from making decisions when objective decisions are called for.
I was surprised and a little shocked by what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) said about the appointment of Sheriff Principal Taylor as an assistant commissioner. I refute the ghastly allegations made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), because Sheriff Principal Taylor, who is the

sheriff principal of Tayside, is highly regarded and respected by all strands of Tayside society. I wish that could say the same about the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.

Mr. Canavan: What is the hon. Gentleman's majority?

Mr. Harry Ewing: Sheriff Principal Taylor is sheriff principal for Tayside and the central region and his sheriffdom stretches from Dundee to the boundary of the central region.

Mr. Walker: I stand corrected. I deliberately excluded that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why. I am concentrating on Tayside, which I feel is relevant. I speak from my knowledge of Tayside. I hesitate to comment on "all strands of opinion" in areas outside Tayside, because I could not be sure that I would be reflecting the view's of people whom I do not know.
It is also interesting to speculate on what would have happened if the appeal, such as it was, had gone to the Court of Session, Second Division, where Lord Wheatley, a former and distinguished Labour Lord Advocate, or Lord Hunter, a former Tory candidate, would have had to make a judgment. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Craigton was seriously suggesting that these gentlemen would not have given a fair judgment. It is nonsense to suggest that someone who at an earlier stage in his career has been seen as a party politician should always stay that way. In this country we stand as party politicians with an aspiration to being elected. Many people afterwards leave the party with which they started and change their allegiance. Some have changed their allegiance while still hon. Members. As time goes by, the individual's views change. To think that someone who has started with a party political view will stay with that view for the rest of his life is naive.

Mr. Canavan: Has the hon. Gentleman changed his allegiance?

Mr. Walker: It is unlikely that I should do that. I have not changed, and I am not likely to do so. I have been of the same political opinion ever since I found that I could not stomach the behaviour and antics of the people masquerading as Labour politicians in Dundee. I discovered that at an early age and consequently have never changed my views and opinions. I say "masquerading as politicians" because there are doubts in some quarters about whether these people are actually Labour members. I imagine that there are some Labour politicians who doubt whether the gentlemen to whom I am referring are Labour members.
It would have been interesting if we had known at the outset that there would be an increase in the number of seats from 71 to 72. I have no doubt that different and more representations would have been put to the commission. I looked at what they were thinking about for the Tayside region in the knowledge that there would be no crossing of regional boundaries and that there would not be more than 71 seats in Scotland. I decided that I could not, in connection with what was happening in my constituency, put forward a case which would stand up to close examination—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is still making comments from a sedentary position. He suffers from sour grapes. I do not suffer in


that way because I realised at an early stage that there was nothing that I could suggest that would be acceptable, based on 71 seats. I do not feel, now that there are 72 seats, that I have lost anything. I just feel that perhaps it would have been better if we had known at the outset that there was the possibility of having 72 seats. Things would have been presented differently.
I recognised at the outset that the key to the numbers lay in the manner in which the city of Perth was to be dealt with in the proposed new constituency. The decision of the commission to split my constituency and that of Kinross and West Perthshire east-west rather than north-south, as they were previously, means that the new constituency of North Tayside is to be a large rural constituency spreading from the Moulin moors in the west to Letham in the east. With the roads to Perthshire and Angus and the Angus glens running north and south, no one can doubt that such a constituency will place a considerable burden not only on the Member of Parliament but on the party political organisations.
To bring the numbers up to an acceptable level, Scone, which has always been considered to be a part of Perth by those living in it, had to be included in the constituency. It is difficult to see how a commuter community such as Scone can have much in common with Aberfeldy, Kirriemuir or Forfar. The other new constituency of Perth and Kinross makes sense. The road system follows the line of the constituency and the problems of travel will not be of the dimension faced in North Tayside.
The commission was right to accept that Gowrie should be included in Perth and Kinross. I hope that this augurs well for Longforgan and Invergowrie when the local government Boundary Commission next looks at Dundee district boundaries and that they will be included in Perth and Kinross district council rather than Dundee district council.
I accept that the voters in Lundie, Muirhead and Birkhill who at present are in the South Angus constituency will object to the Gowrie area, of which they are part, being included in Perth and Kinross. I am confident that this will be preferable to the alternative, which was to be swallowed up by the city of Dundee.
The commission has carried out a difficult job well in Tayside. It is to be congratulated on the way in which the work was carried out.

Mr. John Home Robertson: We have just heard the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) staking a claim for the Conservative domination of North Tayside. He suggested to the Minister that the new Member for North Tayside in the next Parliament, whoever he is, will have to be provided with a helicopter to cover his constituency. The hon. Gentleman may have one qualification—only one—as a representative of the people of that area. I gather that he can fly—but whether under his own steam I do not know.
The point has already been made that the Boundary Commission for Scotland had a difficult job to do. It had peculiar criteria under which to work and it came up with some strange answers. The constituency in which my constituency will be spread will range in terms of electorate from the new East Lothian constituency with an

electorate of 63,000 to the new Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency with an electorate of only 36,000.
The Boundary Commission was told that it had to work within the existing regional county boundaries. Given that the Borders regional council has an electorate of 80,000, which is obviously too big to be one constituency, logically there had to be two constituencies, which, according to the general shakedown of the review, will make two ridiculously small constituencies in terms of electorates.
I think that the commission has done a good job in terms of redistributing parliamentary seats in Scotland given the shortcomings and difficulties of the criteria within which it had to work. However, it has to be said that tonight we are breaking up some ancient and respected burghs and counties. In that sense, I suppose the real damage was done in 1973 when the Local Government (Scotland) Act was enacted. From that day on the Boundary Commission's hands were tied.
As I have said, my constituency will be split in two. At present it consists of two former counties—Berwickshire and East Lothian. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) will know something about this because he visited the area on one occasion. It is an area of 724 square miles—rather bigger than his present constituency. Each of those former counties had its own Member, first in the Scottish Parliament and, after the Act of Union in 1707, in the House of Commons. They were joined in 1918 when the new constituency, which was originally called Berwick and Harrington, was constituted.
In 1918 the Boundary Commission did a very good job because that constituency has had about the right quota of electors ever since, finishing up with about 63,000, as it is now. But from the political point of view, it did a terrible job because it created an appallingly marginal constituency, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South will bear witness. He had to move to bluer pastures in Morningside after his brief sojourn in Berwick and East Lothian.
The constituency has changed hands on numerous occasions. It started off as a Liberal seat in 1918. It had its first Labour Member in 1923, and it is a great honour for me to be the last Member for Berwick and East Lothian. East Lothian is to have its own Member of Parliament again. In the past it has had distinguished Members. In the Lloyd George Cabinet, Mr. Haldane was the Member for East Lothian, so perhaps the new Member for East Lothian might also hope to get Cabinet office at some time.
It would be wrong of me to let this debate pass without mentioning the sad fact that the proud old county of Berwickshire is finally to be split asunder. In that sense the Boundary Commission is picking up where Edward IV left off. Five hundred years ago, in 1482, he took Berwick away from Berwickshire. Now the Boundary Commission is finally taking Lauderdale out of Berwickshire. Lauderdale will become part of the new Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency, towards which I understand the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is casting his eyes.
My family has had a long association with the county of Berwickshire and with what was previously known as the eastern march of the Scottish borders. In the course of my parliamentary duties as Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian I have regularly been present at


the riding of the bounds of the ancient burgh of Lauder. The purpose of the riding of the marches is to check that nobody has intruded into the territory of the burgh. Last year when the riders went out from the burgh of Lauder to ride round the marches, they came back and reported to the provost and myself that an intruder had been seen on the boundaries—the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I am happy to say that on that occasion he was seen off. I understand that, emboldened by the review that we are debating, he is going to try again, and has made a public statement today that he intends to seek election for the new constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. That will be a decision for the good citizens of Lauder and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they can be relied upon to come to a characteristically sensible conclusion.
Nevertheless, I think it must be said that it is sad that Berwick and East Lothian, as a parliamentary constituency, is to be broken up. It is sad, too, that the county of Berwickshire is to disappear finally from the map. I wish that could have been avoided.
It has been difficult in these past years to represent the constituency, which includes parts of no fewer than six local authorities. Clearly, this must apply to many hon. Members who have been representing Scottish constituencies in this House since the local government boundaries review in 1973.
The Boundary Commission has taken account of new local authority boundaries. I cannot say that it has not done a better job than might have been done in certain circumstances. We could do worse than to cast our minds back to the allocation of seats in this House following the Act of Union in 1707, when a constituency called Caithness and Bute was created. I do not know how anybody in 1707 managed to represent a constituency which went from the extreme north-eastern point of Scotland to an island in the Firth of Clyde. I am glad that a similar stupid mistake has not been made now.

Mr. Michael Ancram: It is a great pleasure in a sense to follow the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) who, as he rightly said, represents an area with which I had a connection over some time.

Mr. Home Robertson: Six months.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed. During that six months I learnt enough about that constituency to be somewhat surprised to observe the crocodile tears that he was shedding tonight for losing Berwickshire from his constituency. Over that perhaps we should draw a veil.
I am also delighted to see in his place the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). When the debate started and his absence was echoing around the Chamber it was rather like Hamlet without the prince. Now that he is here the debate can fulfil the potential that has been advertised for it over the past week. We appreciate his problem. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to see his constituency disintegrate into seven pieces and we understand why he does much of what he does. However, the idea of the hon. Gentleman splitting into seven pieces himself gives us a prospect of a pyrotechnic marvel of a sort that we rarely see.
I welcome the Boundary Commission's report. It has been a long time coming and those of us who have waited

nervously to see its final outcome would agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millar)) that, overall and in general, it has done a good job. Obviously there are difficulties within it. There are certain inconsistencies and each hon. Member will have his own view about those. However, there are certain general inconsistencies which have been touched on and which, in a debate on an order such as this, it is for the House to consider because we may have learnt some lessons from this Boundary Commission for the future.
The first matter that has been touched on is that of the population figures. I understand that the commission was asked to come to its conclusions on the basis of the populations within the various regions in 1978. It has done us a service because it has printed in brackets the population figures for 1982 alongside the 1978 population figures. It is quite staggering how the population of the Grampian region has increased over that time. Yet the Boundary Commission seems to have felt itself bound by the 1978 population figures in the view that it took in distributing the seats within that regional area. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire.. East (Mr. McQuarrie) is nodding in agreement.
As I understand it, the purpose of the rather strange way in which the commission works is that it is a lengthy process but that during its course the commission is entitled to look at things as they develop. It listens to new evidence and takes new representations. It is a moving system which is able to take account of developments. Yet it appears that the one development that it cannot take account of is population change. Therefore, in the commissioners' report the one region in Scotland where there has been a major population increase is one for which they have reduced the number of seats by one. That is serious enough to warrant looking at when the House decides whether the rules for such commissions should be changed.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), with whom I sympathise and agree completely, touched upon the way in which, in its preliminary recommendations, the commission announced that it had resolved that there was no justification for more than 71 seats. I do not have the exact quotation, but if I remember it correctly the word "resolved" was used. I remember noting that carefully at the time. The word "resolved" implies that a fim decision has been made. That, as the hon. Member for Inverness said, was the basis on which many of us made representations to the individual inquiries as they took place. Whatever we did—after all, we are all politicians here; we have to take an overall view of representation in Scotland as well as local areas and their particular needs—it would be on the basis of 71 seats. Thus, if we asked for one more in the highlands, as the hon. Member has rightly recorded my party did, we would not be seeking an extra one somewhere else, because to do so would be to create confusion.
Although I took the view that the word "resolved" meant that this was part of the remit within which the commission would eventually reach its decisions and if we were to make responsible submissions to the various inquiries we should keep this particular part of its remit in mind, in the end we were left making what I regarded as responsible submissions from all sides within this context and, suddenly, at a very late date, found the rug dragged from beneath our feet.
If in future we are not to pay regard to the determinations that are made by the commission when it makes its provisional recommendations, we are opening the door to all sorts of irresponsible and confusing submissions being made at every inquiry. People may ask why they should stop at one more seat for any particular area. They may feel that they can ask for four or five seats and that it does not matter because in the end the commission will reach its own decision. If, in what is a very complex situation anyway, we all asked for what we could get, the job of the commission would be much more difficult than it was this time when we were all trying to work within responsible guidelines.
I was, therefore, surprised to read, on page 10 of the report, although the commission does not use the word "resolution",
In all these circumstances we determined that for the purpose of formulating our provisional recommendations the number of constituencies in Scotland should remain at 71.
I hope that the next Boundary Commission will make it clear at the outset that, if it states a number of seats, it will be merely for the purpose of formulating its provisional recommendations, because on this occasion many of us were misled by what it said.
I must ask what the system is, because, having been through this process, I am still slightly at a loss to understand the method by which the Boundary Commission reaches its final decisions. Does it weigh up the balance of opinion? As I read the report, on occasion it seems almost to have weighed opinion in an area and decided to go with the majority. Does it merely count the objectors?
There was a very interesting situation in my constituency, which has changed only a little. There was a change from one area to another between the preliminary recommendations and the secondary recommendations and it was made on the basis of the local Labour party putting in an objection, together with one individual. Although I am always sad to lose any part of my constituency—particularly the Braidburn area—and although it was not a particularly significant change, to make it because there are one or two objectors and no answer to them seems to me a very strange way of proceeding.
Is the commission using its own judgment? If so, I should have preferred to know at the beginning because it would have been easier to make our recommendations.
In the debate on the English boundaries the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked whether the changes were political. If politics does matter in boundary revisions—if I understood his argument, he believes that that is inevitable—let us be honest and open about it. At the moment there seems to be a veil of secrecy or mystery surrounding the commission which I would prefer to see removed.
I must join my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) in deprecating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The person who is named in it is a judge.

Mr. Canavan: Some judge!

Mr. Ancram: He is not in a position to answer back.

Mr. Canavan: He should not have been appointed.

Mr. Ancram: It is unfortunate that attacks of this sort are made when the person who is attacked is not able to reply. I think that most hon. Members would agree with that comment. That person has been appointed to that position because it is accepted in our system that, whatever a peson's political views may have been in the past, once he becomes a judge he exercises the functions of that office without fear or favour, which means without bias of any kind. The second most senior judge in Scotland, and one of the most respected, Lord Wheatley, had an important and respected career as a Labour Member of this House and a member of a Labour Government. To suggest that a person's political past will affect the way in which he behaves as a judge is a scurrilous attack on the judicial system.

Mr. Canavan: The Table Office would not have accepted the amendment if it had criticised Mr. Taylor in his capacity as sheriff. The amendment criticises his appointment and capacity as a reporter to a public inquiry. As for speaking back, I well recall that in The Scotsman about a year ago Sheriff Taylor hit back at comments that I had made in the House. He is perfectly capable of speaking for himself instead of using a lackey like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), his Tory party chairman.

Mr. Ancram: For one marvellous moment I thought that the hon. Member was going to finish a serious point without descending to his usual style of invective, but perhaps I was too hopeful.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Craigton did not mean what he said, because if we cannot accept that sheriffs—who are, after all, judges—are in a position to act without bias we shall be in serious difficulties. We cannot examine the background of every judge and sheriff in Scotland. They have all held personal and political opinions in the past. It must be understood within our society that a judge is the most likely person to be unbiased.
The right hon. Member for Craigton and the hon. Member for Inverness referred to comparative electoral numbers in different areas. As a city member, I examined some of the figures for the cities. I discovered an extraordinary situation. The average number of electors required to elect a Member of Parliament in Glasgow will be 55,500. In Edinburgh, however, it will require 58,000, in Aberdeen 59,000 and in Dundee 64,000. I had always realised that the calibre and competence of Edinburgh Members was greater than that of Glasgow Members so that fewer were needed to represent the city, but until I read the report I had no idea that the analogy went further and that the competence and calibre of Dundee Members was so highly regarded by the Boundary Commission.
If there is to be city representation, there must be some equality between the various cities. We all know that Glasgow has many problems that other cities may not share, but the suggestion that it should return Members on the basis of far smaller electorates than Dundee begs a number of questions and does nothing for the democratic system of our country.
In my constituency the changes are small. I welcome the district ward of Murchiston which will come into my constituency, and I am grateful to the Boundary Commission for changing its mind about taking Morningside away. The hon. Member for Berwick and


East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rightly remarked that I had moved to blue Morningside only to find in the original recommendations that the commission was taking it away from me. It is an important part and in many ways the heart of my constituency, and I am glad that it is to stay.
I pay tribute once again to the Boundary Commission for producing such a competent report with the difficult system that it has to operate.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I shall follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) on only one point—the numbers representing cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. If he were to go back to the original proposals of the Boundary Commission, he would see the logic of the Glasgow proposals. No doubt the Commission made its original proposals not because Glasgow is the industrial heart of Scotland and generated its basic wealth at one time, but because of the way an earlier Boundary Commission had divided the city and the region into regional seats.
The original proposals would have made it difficult for those who were not highly political—or even for those who were—to know which constituency they were in, because there would have been different boundaries for the district council seats, for the regional council seats and for the parliamentary seats. In a democracy people want to see a relationship between regional councillors, district councillors and Members of Parliament. My constituency party produced maps to the Boundary Commission and ultimately proved that 11 seats were reasonable for the city of Glasgow, with three regional council districts to each parliamentary constituency.
One of the most fundamental points relates to the names of constituencies. I understand the impossibility of amending the draft order. If amendments were possible, unless they were limited to names, the debate on the Scottish proposals, never mind the England and Wales proposals, would go on indefintely.
When the old Woodside and Kelvingrove constituencies were amalgamated into Kelvingrove, the constituency which I represent, it made good sense topographically. In other words, when the Boundary Commission looked at a map of the Clyde valley and the Kelvin valley, that seemed intelligible, but it made no sense in terms of the old communities. I tried to pick a central point for my advice centre. I discovered that although it was central and well served by transport, the people of Partick, Anderston and Maryhill wanted their own territorial identity. Therefore, I had to have advice centres in each of the areas to satisfy community need.
It is interesting to observe that not one part of the old burgh of Hillhead is in the existing constituency of Hillhead. This brings me to the new constituency which I hope I shall have the honour to represent in the next Parliament. There will be a small part of Hillhead burgh in the proposed Hillhead constituency. Representations have been made to me by people who are slightly offended that the old burghs of Anderston, which is as old as the city of Glasgow itself, Govan and Partick, have been given no precedence in terms of names.
I do not want to go through the same procedure as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), but I understand that there are about 24 distinct, historic

districts within the Hillhead constituency, which is an important district but by no means the most important in the area. As I said, we have the old burghs of Anderston, Partick, Whiteinch and Yoker, which have been lost to the relatively smaller old burgh of Hillhead.
I should have been delighted had it been possible to change the name of the constituency. I consulted widely across the political spectrum of people in the area, where I have lived for a long time, and found that the name Kelvin would have been acceptable to almost everyone. Of course, many other names were suggested: Clyde, Clydeholm—meaning land adjoining the Clyde—Western, Hillside. Carlyth and Harland. They are all old names in the area. I realise that it is too late now, and I have explained why, but I hope that the next Boundary Commission will pay attention to how people identify with areas. How can we expect the people of Yoker or those on the borders of Scotstoun West or Scoutstoun or Whiteinch to believe that they are part of Hillhead? How can people who live in Buchanan street be expected to identify with Hillhead, when the new constituency will stretch from Buchanan street to the bridge at Yoker or Kingsway, and take in part of Anniesland Cross?
This may seem a minor point compared with the numbers in areas but it is important for people to be able to identify themselves with the area in which they live. When they hear the name, they feel that that is where they belong, that it is related to the parliamentary constituency, the regional constituency and the district constituency.
I hope that what has been said in this debate will be taken into consideration by those who draw up the terms of reference for the next Boundary Commission. I hope, too, that they will not lightly overlook the importance of local names with which people can identify.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) said, because it will be confusing for many electors to work out the constituency to which they belong, and recognise it by reference to a community name.
I am only marginally affected by these boundary changes, but I was surprised to see in one of the first tables produced by the Boundary Commission that I had the second largest constituency in Scotland, the largest then being Dundee, West. Significantly, however—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—there are continual changes in population. The population in Grampian region has shot up during the past four years, and the population of Dundee is declining, partly because commuters are moving out of the city into country areas, and also because of the industrial rundown. As a result, there are fewer opportunities for employment in Dundee, and the population is thus dropping.
Although the report is broadly acceptable to most Scottish Members—except, perhaps, to those whose constituencies are fractured—it does have deficiencies. Some were the fault of the commissioners in the way that they tackled the job. Some were due to the change of mind that they displayed when they allowed Glasgow an extra seat, having previously intimated that no extra seats would be available.
The commissioners were unwilling to look at Scotland as a whole. The relationship of Scottish constituencies to


those in other parts of the United Kingdom appears early on the record. During the past few days, the House has heard some complaints, mostly from English Conservatives, about Scotland's representation. Although there has been an erosion over the past 20 to 25 years in Scotland's representation in proportional terms, it has been partly made up by the additional seat that has been awarded to Glasgow. I do not begrudge Glasgow that additional seat. No doubt a powerful argument was put to the Boundary Commission. Glasgow was lucky that the commissioner was willing to accept the argument and recommend an extra seat.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member spoke of Glasgow being given an additional seat. He knows as well as anyone—although someone reading the report of the debate might not realise it—that Glasgow will have fewer seats than at present. The additional seat is additional to the preliminary recommendation of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Wilson: I was assuming that I was preaching to a Scottish audience who would know the position. Coming from the west of the country, perhaps I have an advantage. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) was right in explaining the position for the benefit of those who do not come from the west of Scotland.
The problem of Dundee losing part of its population is reflected by what has happened to Glasgow during the past 20 years. It has lost a huge part of its population. That is why its representation was reduced. It was to have been reduced more than is the case.
Had I been an aficionado of cruel sports, I might have relished the sight of the reselection conferences taking place in the Glasgow area as Members fought for a home in the next parliament. That does not detract from the argument that other areas would have been entitled to additional representation had the Boundary Commission started on that basis. The arguments made from all political viewpoints would have been to try to secure constituencies that were reasonable in size and in population to the area they covered, and which reflected existing communities.
When communities are disturbed, the Boundary Commission has done something wrong. It would have been far easier to look at Scotland overall and decide how many constituencies were relevant to Scotland. Hon. Members know that the duty of the Boundary Commission is to try to keep within the minimum number of 71. To begin with, the Boundary Commission construed that as a maximum rather than a minimum. Strange figures appeared. In 1978, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth had 39,000 electors, Cunninghame, South 49,000 and Livingston 46,200. Those are both rural and congested urban areas. They contrast substantially with the position of Dundee and Aberdeen that have large electorates.
The argument originally adopted for Scotland was that, because of the remoteness and dispersed nature of the population, there should be a higher representation. That was stretched in different ways compared with what was originally intended.
Some peculiar constituencies have appeared. North Tayside will be justified after it has been in existence for 20 to 25 years and has established a community of its own. It runs from Aberfeldy in the west to Forfar and beyond

in the east. It has no natural road communications link to help to bring it together. It will be a difficult constituency. I expect that, after the Boundary Commission looked at Dundee and other parts of Tayside, it found that it was left with a huge crescent.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was rightly embittered by his experience. There is no doubt that Inverness and Ross and Cromarty are huge areas of terrain that are difficult for any hon. Member adequately to represent. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has yet to make his contribution to the debate. I am sure that he will be ferocious about what has happened to him.
One small case brought to me in my capacity of chairman of the Scottish National party relates to Monklands West. Lenzie Waterside has been casually put into a constituency with which the people feel there is no natural association. Those associations may come in time, but at present the kindest thing that we can say is that they are unnatural.
The duty of the Boundary Commission is to try to equalise votes and achieve some degree of weight between numbers, remoteness and sizes of constituency. But even if perfection is found, and the new constituencies match all the requirements, we shall still be left with the fundamental inequality of the voting system. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) each represent about 250,000 people on a party political basis. The figure for the Liberals in the United Kingdom was taken at about 360,000 per person elected—

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman represents only Dundee, East.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I represent Dundee, East but—

Mr. McQuarrie: That is all the hon. Gentleman represents.

Mr. Wilson: We all have our party affiliations—

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman represents Dundee, East.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself—

Mr. McQuarrie: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I prefer him to rise and make his remarks rather than do so from a sedentary position.

Mr. McQuarrie: It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that either he or his right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) represent 250,000 people each. The hon. Gentleman represents the constituency to which he was elected. Other Members who represented the SNP were rejected by the electorate in 1979. The hon. Gentleman represents only Dundee, East. He does not represent 250,000 people, and never will. He will be lucky if he is returned to the House at the next election.

Mr. Wilson: With the approach of the general election, it is the hon. Gentleman who is excited, not me.
I readily accept that I, like other hon. Members, was elected to a particular constituency which I am proud to represent. But, equally, none of us would dispute that we


were also elected for political parties. Before the hon. Gentleman gets hot under the collar, may I say that I was not suggesting that I represent a constituency of 250,000 people—only that I represent that many in relation to party weighting and voting. There is no doubt that that number voted SNP, although they may be represented—temporarily, I hope—by representatives of other political parties.
Even if the constituencies were properly adjusted by the Boundary Commission to the satisfaction of everyone, there would still be the problem of the inequitable nature of the voting system. The hon. Member for Inverness passed briefly over that point, but it cannot be swept under the carpet. I am convinced that there will be changes, especially in Scotland, even if the House itself is so old-fashioned and dinosauric as to ignore demands for fairer representation on both an individual constituency basis and a party basis.

Mr. George Foulkes: I do not wish to follow in any great detail what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) except to say, with regard to his dispute with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), that perhaps some of us feel that the hon. Member for Dundee, East represents only a reactionary wing of his party and not all the views within his party. I am sure that my predecessor would at least agree with me on that, if nothing else.
Instead of following the hon. Member for Dundee, East, I wish to go on from where my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) left off. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East rightly said, whenever the Prime Minister favours us with the opportunity of an election, we are all looking forward—I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members present today—to welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove back as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead. I have just seen a frown on the face of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), so there is one hon. Member who will not welcome him back in that capacity, but the hon. Gentleman will not be here to welcome him back anyway.
I tabled an amendment, but I realise why it has not been called. I regret that it has not been called. I regret that something as apparently unimportant as a name, which however is important to the people who live in the area and are concerned about it—it is certainly important to the local authorities in the area which have made representations on this matter—cannot be amended by the House. I wrote to the Secretary of State—I am glad to see him in his place tonight—saying that there was no objection within south Ayrshire to the constituency being called South Ayrshire. I told him that even representatives of the Conservative party wanted it so. I asked him to amend the Boundary Commission's recommendation about the name. Unfortunately, he did not feel able to do so. That is most unfortunate. On such a matter, which offends no one and could please so many, it would have been simple for him to agree.
I agree with much of the work that the Boundary Commission has done on this occasion. I am not one of those who greatly object to what has been done, but it is bureaucracy gone mad when the commission insists—and even then does not do so fully—that the new district

boundaries should be adhered to. I shall remind the House briefly of what happened about the new constituency of South Ayrshire, which has had a small piece added to it.
The preliminary proposal was that the constituency would be called Carrick and Doon Valley. Cumnock and Doon Valley district council said according to paragraph 225 of the report that
the name suggested is historically inept and geographically inaccurate.
That is not the objection. That was not the proper description of the new area of the constituency.
The assistant commissioner, unlike other assistant commissioners, was wise and sensible. He said of the choice of the name of the Carrick and Doon 'Valley constituency:
There was no doubt, on the basis of the written and oral submissions, that 'South Ayrshire' is the most straightforward, the most accurate and most acceptable name for the constituency in relation to 'South Ayrshire' … there was support right across the political spectrum, including Mr. George Foulkes, MP.
I am not sure whether I am right across the political spectrum
Unless the Commission felt it essential to depart altogether from the old shire names, he recommended"—
this is the assistant commissioner speaking—
retention of the name 'South Ayrshire', whether or not the constituencies to the north were called 'North Ayrshire' and `Central Ayrshire'.
He went on to say that if the commission found it impossible to accept that recommendation, the correct title would not be Carrick and Doon Valley but Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, and added that the name would be "pedantic and clumsy". It is pedantic and clumsy. If the recommendations are accepted, when such constituency names are used, the procedure in the House will become more tortuous than at present. People will have to refer to me as hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. Saying that starts a filibuster in itself. There is a predisposition to go on for hours. Members know that I need no encouragement to do that, as do some other hon. Members.
There are royalist implications in the use of Carrick about which one might not be happy. There are also other aspects. The name was described by the assistant commissioner as "pedantic and clumsy." However, it is ultimately what the commission accepted. Regrettably, the Secretary of State, who represents Ayr and should know a great deal better, refused to alter it. Therefore, the proposed name is Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, instead of South Ayrshire, which was desired by everyone.. The arguments were put forward at the hearing by Cumnock and Doon valley district council extremely weal and the assistant commissioner accepted them.
I do not understand why district names are appropriate.. I do not understand why we cannot use other names. After all, the name "Ayrshire" is still being used. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will accept that. Ayrshire is still being used for the lieutenancy. There is still a lord lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran. There is also a deputy lieutenant. It is still used for the health board, which is the Ayrshire and Arran health board. It is still used for the chamber of industry, which is the Ayrshire chamber of industry. It is still used by the ordinary people. One of the local newspapers is the Ayrshire Post. People still use it and understand the county of Ayrshire and the constituency of South Ayrshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): They do not understand the Member.

Mr. Foulkes: From time to time they have difficulties in understanding the Member. The hon. Gentleman is right.
If we are to have this clumsy and pedantic name for the South Ayrshire constituency, we should have such a name for all the other constituencies as well. The right hon. Member for Ayr is well satisfied. He will not be called by some newfangled name. He remains the right hon. Member for Ayr. However, that is doubtful. Whoever beats him will inherit the name of that constituency. I had better get that correct.
The name of the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) ought to be changed, but he will still be called the hon. Member for Dumfries, not the hon. Member for Upper Nithsale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, which is the name that he should have. If one is going to be pedantic and clumsy, why not be consistent and call all the constituencies by such strange names?
I hope that there can be a deathbed repentance by the Secretary of State before he gives up at the House. He should use his power to change the name. There is a strong feeling in the whole constituency that its name should remain South Ayrshire. That would do no one any harm.
I shall refer to the new constituency of Ayr. I neither objected nor argued in favour of the transfer of Kincaidston, Annbank and Mossblown from the present constituency of Ayr to the new constituency, which, regrettably, will be called Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. If the order is passed, I shall welcome the people of Kincaidston, Annbank and Mossblown to my constituency. I am sure that they will welcome an active local Member of Parliament. That will make a change.
I did not object to the proposals, but the Ayr constituency Labour party did. I shall mention some of its objections to show that not only in making the name of the constituency the same but in other ways it is no harm to be the Secretary of State to whom the commission is reporting.
By adhering completely to district boundaries rather than examining numbers we have a strange imbalance between the new constituencies in Ayshire. The new Ayr constituency is to have 65,500 electors on the basis of the 1982 figures and will be the largest in Scotland. Cunninghame, South, on the other hand, will have only 48,900 electors and will be the sixth smallest constituency on the mainland. There will be a huge imbalance between two neighbouring constituencies. There is no argument, other than the hope and desire of preserving the seat of the Secretary of State for Scotland, for transferring Troon from what will be the Cunninghame, South constituency to Ayr which will be one of the largest constituencies in Scotland. It is significant that it is the Secretary of State who has been so favoured.
I can understand why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), sits in the House with a satisfied smile these days, but half way through the Boundary Commission's deliberations he did not look quite so rosy.
I should like to say a little about what hon. Members who represent English constituencies, especially the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), said yesterday. The constant bickering of Conservative

Members of Parliament about the representation of Scotland in this united Parliament is a serious matter. We ought to remind them that this Parliament represents a union of the two Parliaments of England and Scotland. There would be serious constitutional implications if they undermined the constitutional position that was agreed at the Union.
I shall finish as I started. I am proud to follow a great tradition as Member of Parliament for the South Ayrshire constituency. I only hope that there is some way in which to preserve that name. It will be a great sadness for all the people of South Ayrshire if we are forced to get that huge mouthful of a constituency out—Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move the amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper. It is a good amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that his amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Canavan: I thought that you would say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, it is important to put it on record—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move it as it has not been selected.

Mr. Canavan: I thought that you would say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important to put it on the record so that people outside can see the lack of parliamentary democracy in here whereby hon. Members can table amendments but do not get the opportunity to vote on them. That is not an indictment of the Chair.
I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the only hon. Member in Britain whose constituency is being smashed into seven pieces. I am in difficult circumstances in that none of those seven resulting constituencies consists of a majority of my existing constituency.
I realise that that means that whatever happens to me, I shall lose the majority of the people whom I now represent. I have heard that there are some whispers and rumours among the Tory establishment of west Stirlingshire to the extent, I believe, that some of them colloquially refer to this mad scheme as the Dennis Canavan job release scheme. I may yet disappoint them all by returning here in some other reincarnation. [HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Lords".] That remains to be seen.
The motivation behind my remarks tonight is not self-preservation, but, much more important, the preservation of communities and community links that have existed for many years and that are now being ripped asunder by this senseless order. I accept that some reorganisation of my constituency, and probably most constituencies, was inevitable following the fundamental reorganisation of local government a decade ago. I complain not about the principle of reorganisation but about the way in which it has been carried out. I shall refer specifically to what happened in central region.
When the initial proposals were produced, most parties, with the exception of the Conservative party, were broadly in favour of them. The Labour party and the SNP were


reasonably happy with them, and the Liberal party and the SDP, such as they exist, seemed to be reasonably happy—

Mr. McQuarrie: Where are they?

Mr. Canavan: All the local authorities favoured the original proposals. Central region, the three districts of Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan, and all the Members of Parliament who represent central region and who expressed an opinion were broadly in favour. I do not recall the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) expressing an opinion on the matter, but he spends more time in his castle in Fife than in central region, which perhaps explains his silence on that matter and on many others affecting the region.
There was a fair degree of logic behind the original proposals, because central region, with a total electorate of just more than 200,000, could be divided tidily into four parliamentary constituencies with an average electorate of about 50,000, which is about the Scottish quota. Falkirk district could be divided tidily into two parliamentary constituencies of roughly equal size. The Boundary Commission was left with a problem, because Stirling district was too big to be a constituency in its own right and Clackmannan was too small. It seemed logical to take some people from Stirling and to move them to Clackmannan to achieve reasonable parity of numbers. The commission concluded that it would transfer two electoral divisions from Stirling district to Clackmannan district.
Again fairly logically, looking at a map, any reasonable person would have thought that the electoral division that should have been transferred was the only one that is contiguous by land with Clackmannan district—electoral division 15, which includes the village of Blairlogie—a Hillfoots village—the university of Stirling, which is at the edge of Hillfoots, and the town of Bridge of Allan. The next but one electoral division that could have been added to Clackmannan was Doune and Dunblane. That seemed to be fairly logical, and most people—with the exception of a Tory clique—were reasonably happy. So ends scene one of my tale.
In scene two, enter Sheriff Taylor. Due to a clamour from the Tory clique out of all proportion to the number of people whom they represent, the Boundary Commission decided to hold a public inquiry. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland—not the Boundary Commission—appointed a reporter to the inquiry. In this case the Secretary of State lives in the area and was, therefore, more susceptible to local pressures than he would normally be. He decided to appoint as reporter to the public inquiry Sheriff Principal Taylor, who is a former chairman of the central and southern region of the Scottish Conservative association and who held that position until his appointment as a sheriff about a decade ago. He also stood for Parliament three times, and failed three times to get here, so it seems that he is now trying to cook the boundaries so that one of his pals can come here.
I raised this matter about a year ago with the then Leader of the House, who is now the Foreign Secretary, and asked him about the credentials of this man Taylor. The Leader of the House replied:
The person referred to in the early-day motions was a candidate in the 1950s and 1960s and accordingly considered that he could not properly act as an assistant commissioner in relation to the Tayside region.

In other words, it seems that there was some communication between Sheriff Taylor and the Boundary Commission whereby Sheriff Taylor admitted that because of his party political history he should not be a reporter within the Tayside region. He specified the Tayside region because he had been a candidate in Dundee, which lies within that region.
The Leader of the House continued:
The objections were not considered to apply to any inquiry relating to Central and Fife regions and the Secretary of State agreed to his appointment for those regions."—[Official Report, 25 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 991.]
I do not believe that where a man stood as a candidate is particularly relevant. When judging his partiality it is relevant to consider under which banner he stood. I do not believe that the geographical location of Sheriff Taylor' s candidature is as important as the fact that he stood as a party political candidate and was one of the leading officials of the Scottish Conservative party right up until his appointment as sheriff not all that long ago.
I maintain that such people should not be allowed to be reporters to public inquiries of this nature. He was appointed an assistant commissioner. They are supposed to be independent and above party politics. I do not believe that there is anyone who is 100 per cent. impartial about anything. We should at least try to minimise partiality. If someone has stood three times as a parliamentary candidate for one political party, there is no need TO guess where his political allegiance lies.
I hope that when we return to office after the next general election we shall bring in amending legislation to disqualify such characters from being in charge of public inquiries designed to carve up constituency boundaries.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it the hon. Gentleman's considered view that he would not be an appropriate person to sit on a public inquiry of any kind?

Mr. Canavan: Not of this particular type, which draws up constituency boundaries which can have an effect on not just the quality but the political complexion of the representative that the people will have. No one who has been a Member of the House or has stood for election to the House should conduct such a public inquiry. No such person could be impartial.
Bearing in mind Sheriff Taylor's background, he not surprisingly gave the Tories everything they wanted, including the creation of a new seat that is unique in certain respects. The new Clackmannan seat is the only seat in Scotland—the Boundary Commission admits this, possibly because I pointed it out—which consists of one entire local authority district plus bits of two others. It consists of Clackmannan district plus a bit of Stirling district and a bit of Falkirk district. According to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, as amended, paragraph 4 of schedule 2 states clearly that the Boundary Commission must have regard, wherever practicable, to local government area boundaries. Surely that means that there should be an attempt to minimise the crossing of local government boundaries as long as reasonable parity of numbers can be obtained by not crossing them.
Anyone who has read the report and compared the revised recommendations with the initial recommendations will see that there is not much difference between the recommendations in terms of parity of numbers. Parity of numbers could have been achieved by crossing only one


district boundary instead of crossing two district boundaries, as the commission has done in its revised proposals.
The new constituency of Clackmannan is, as far as I can see looking at the map, the only mainland constituency in Scotland that is divided by a major waterway, the river Forth, in such a way that constituents in the southern part of the constituency, in order to cross to the northern part of the constituency, will have to go through another constituency by crossing the river Forth either upstream or downstream. They will have to cross through another constituency because they will have to go into Stirling to cross the river or into Kincardine to cross the river.

Mr. Bill Walker: The same happens in Perth and Kinross where the river Tay crosses the constituency.

Mr. Canavan: There is a bridge across the Tay by which constituents can cross from one part of the constituency to the other. I hope that the hon. Member will have another look at the map.
In other words, there is no direct transport by land from one part of the Clackmannan constituency to another. It is little wonder that there was an outcry from many people because of the revised recommendations. All the local authorities sent in objections. Community councils and representatives of the villages of Plean, Cowie, Throsk and Fallin wrote in. I have yet to find any constituent in any of the four villages in favour of the revised proposals. They objected and sent in petitions.
The links of these four villages with the Stirling area are far longer and stronger than those of the people in Doune and Dunblane who, until recently, were in the county of Perth for local government purposes and still are in Perthshire for parliamentary representation purposes. Despite all these representations, unfortunately, the commission stuck to its guns and even refused to call a second public inquiry, despite many demands, on the ground that the second proposals were fundamentally different from the original proposals.
I was one of the objectors, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill). We wrote supporting the original proposals, but we got word back saying that the commission was sorry but it was sticking to the revised proposals and that was that. I wrote back pointing out that it had given no reasons why it was accepting the revised proposals in favour of the original proposals. I received a letter in return from the secretary of the Boundary Commission saying:
The Commission have asked me to say that they do not consider it appropriate to explain at this stage the reasons for their decision which will be given in their final report to the Secretary of State.
I have had a look at the report and I am still looking in vain for any reasons. The only attempt to state a reason in the report is that the commission says it agrees with Sheriff Taylor—"Sheriff Taylor says this and we agree with him." The commission could not have looked closely at what Sheriff Taylor said because his statement is full of inaccuracies and downright lies, and stuff that has misled many people and possibly the House. His findings are based on prejudice or ignorance, or a combination of both. I can give one or two illustrations. Sheriff Taylor said in his statement:

Plean, Cowie, Throsk and Lethan were former mining communities and they have something in common with communities in Clackmannan that were formerly mining communities.
He then goes on to say that they should therefore be included in Clackmannan. The village of Throsk is not and never has been a mining community. It was built about the time of the first world war to house Admiralty workers at the Admiralty depot at Bandeath. Yet Sheriff Taylor is allowed to make that completely false and unsubstantiated statement. If we look at the mining links of the people on the south side of the river in these villages, such as Plean, Cowie and Fallin, their links are more with other mining communities on the south of the Forth such as Bannockburn, Whins of Milton, St. Ninians and part of Stirling, where there are miners' welfare institutes and so on. If we just look at the one pit in that area on the south side of the river Forth, the Polmoise colliery, almost 90 per cent. of the work force come from the south side of the river. Yet the reporter made a decision to transfer the people to the other side of the river on the ground that they were miners. I have never heard anything so ridiculous.
Talking about electoral divisions 13 and 29, which are the villages of Fallin, Plean, Throsk, Cowie, Airth, Letham, and so on, Sheriff Taylor then says:
They include industrial communities and former or declining mining areas, whereas electoral division 16"—
that is, Doune and Dunblane—
is rural with a country town and villages and electoral division 15"—
that is, Bridge of Allan and the university—
consists of suburban and commuter communities in a rural background.
He must be blind to some of the important industrial projects in that area because one of the largest industrial employers in that area and in my constituency is United Glass, employing over 600 workers at Bridge of Allan, in electoral division 15, and a similar number not far along the road in Clackmannan in the town of Alloa. This indicates a very important industrial link between electoral division 15 and Clackmannan, which the sheriff completely ignored and which the Boundary Commission failed to comment on, despite the fact that I pointed it out in my submission.
Then we come to the case of Stirling university. Some people from Stirling university were reported to have given evidence at the public inquiry saying that they wanted to be in the same constituency as the town of Stirling. Certainly the reporter, Sheriff Taylor, came to that conclusion when he said that he
thought it would be appropriate that the interests of the student electorate and of the University should be represented by the same Member of Parliament as the town of Stirling".
Since its inception the university has never been in the same constituency as the town of Stirling. It is in the constituency of West Stirlingshire, my constituency, and I have never heard people in the university complain about lack of representation in Parliament just because they do not have the same Member of Parliament as the town of Stirling — that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, who has also worked hard on behalf of the university. The university has a good working relationship with all three local Members of Parliament.
The sheriff, however, listened to all this nonsense about the phoney advantages of being in the same constituency as Stirling town. He also listened to the evidence of a temporary honorary president of the council of the students


association, who happens also to be an active member of the Tory party. She was not a student at Stirling university. She was one of those fly-by-night carpet-baggers who came up from the south of England to be honorary president for a year at the university. She gave evidence at the public inquiry, and I have no doubt that the local Tory establishment had a word in her lug and told her to speak on behalf of the students at the public inquiry. She has never been seen since. She has never lifted a finger to help the students at Stirling university. I can vouch for the fact that the existing and the immediate past elected presidents of the council of the students association, speaking on behalf of the whole student body, feel that it does not matter at all whether or not they are in the same constituency as Stirling town. All that was conveniently ignored.
Has anyone ever heard such a stupid reason as the last one given by the sheriff? He says that electoral division 29 is at present linked with Clackmannan and therefore it would be as well to keep it there. Good heavens, I could equally argue that electoral division 13 is at present linked with Bannockburn, Cambusbarron, Fallin and Plean and the rest of West Stirlingshire and therefore it would be as well keeping it there. One's conclusion depends upon one's starting point. For such a piece of evidence to come from a judge is an absolute disgrace. One begins to wonder about the calibre of people sitting on judicial benches, public inquiries and so on when they come out with such unsubstantiated nonsense in their reports.
The Secretary of State knows that I wrote to him on 16 February of this year to ask him to receive a delegation of the villagers of Cowie, Fallin, Plean and Throsk so that he could at least give some last-minute consideration to their pleas. I thought that as the Secretary of State was a reasonable man, he would at least have received and listened to such a delegation. On Monday of this week I received a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. He did not even say that he was sorry; he just said, "No." He said that it was too late, because the order had been tabled. Let me remind him that the order was tabled on 24 February and I wrote to him on 16 February. Even if he were gallivanting in the United States, at least one of his underlings, a junior Minister, could have received the delegation before the order was tabled and debated on the Floor of the House. At that stage, the Secretary of State was the only man who could come forward with possible amendments. I do not think that his refusal to meet the delegation arose from the lack of time but because he was incapable of defending the recommendations, which are absolutely divisive and unnecessarily disruptive.
Before I finish, I want to remind the Secretary of State for Scotland of what he said when he was in opposition on 15 March 1978 on the Floor of the House in favour of an amendment of mine. Ironically, that amendment too was not called, but it was nevertheless referred to in the debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and it referred to the work of the local government Boundary Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said to me:
I congratulate the hon. Member because his amendment would have met the point that I seek to make.
He went on to mention a case in his constituency and said:
It concerns the proposal to transfer the Kincaidstone housing scheme from the Alloway electoral division in Ayr to another electoral division—the Prestwick and Coyle Bank electoral division. Anyone who knows the area will know that there is no community of interest whatever between the Kincaidstone

housing scheme and the Prestwick area, which is at the apposite end of the conurbation and has no natural links with it. The two would make a most unhomogeneous local government area.
The right hon. Gentleman also knows well the area that I am talking about in my constituency, because he lives not very far away. Cart he think of anything more unhomogeneous than lumping Fallin, Pican, Throsk and Cowie with Clackmannan across the river? Whatever happened in his constituency four or five years ago, at least there was not a big unbridged river dividing one part of his electorate from the other.
The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) went on to say:
Here is an ideal opportunity, in this schedule, to make a minor amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire … We ought to make clear to the Boundary Commission that of course it must still take numbers into account, but that it must also take into account the fact that: where community of interest is being broken up it has the right—indeed, the duty—on some occasions to make numbers play a less dominant role, and to recognise the interests of ordinary people in their areas. I hope very much that the Minister will consider whether anything can be done at this stage along those lines.
Parity of numbers between the parliamentary constituencies in the central region could have been reasonably well achieved without breaking the community links to which I have referred.
Perhaps I can quote a final sentence from the Secretary of State's speech, one of the best speeches he has ever given:
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has been concerned with another case which I happen to know of myself because it is near my own home".—[Official Report, 15 March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 505–7.]
He remembers it all right because it concerned his own village of Gargunnoch. I stuck up for the people of Gargunnoch to try to ensure that they got a fair deal from the Boundary Commission at that time. I stuck up for my constituent, the Secretary of State himself, to try to see that he got a fair deal from the Boundary Commission. I supported him, yet now he is failing to support me and, what is worse, he is selling the people of Cowie, Fallin, Plean and Throsk if not down the river then across it. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
I am forced to conclude that these proposals are a blanket act of gerrymandering on the part of he Tory Establishment in a desperate effort to create a winnable seat for their party. But it has not won yet. Let there be no mistake about this. As far as the new Stirling seat is concerned, many of the electorate in that constituency will see through all these tactics and will vote accordingly, to try to return a Labour Member of Parliament at the next general election.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred earlier to the possibility of locking all the party officials into a hotel room for a few days and ending up with reasonable proposals, possibly even more reasonable than those of the Boundary Commission. When I look at these proposals for the central region I begin to suspect that they have emerged from a Tory cocktail party at Leckie house, the ancestral home of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when all the local Tories nobbled him and said, "Look, George, what about trying to give us a seat?" The Secretary of State has apparently succumbed to the temptation. He ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself because these proposals are a disgrace to British parliamentary democracy and bring our parliamentary system into disrepute. If he had any decency left in him


he ought to resign. I call on all fair-minded Members to vote with me in the Lobby against these unfair proposals which are disrupting communities not just in the central region but also in many other parts of Scotland.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: It is somewhat difficult to follow the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Once he has finished his job release scheme I recommend that he starts editing Comic Cuts, because that is what he has been giving us tonight.
The hon. Gentleman's character assassination of Sheriff Principal Taylor was one of the most disgusting things that we have heard in this Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) said, Sheriff Principal Taylor is a member of the judiciary and, once appointed to that position, removes himself from any political affiliation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South also mentioned, Lord Wheatley was a Labour Member of this House and took part in Boundary Commission changes and therefore—

Mr. Harry Ewing: No.

Mr. McQuarrie: Then I withdraw that, but the noble Lord was at least in the House and had no political affiliation when dealing with Boundary Commission proposals.
However, not only did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire endeavour to assassinate the character of Sheriff Principal Taylor by suggesting that it was Tory gerrymandering that made that seat in West Stirlingshire, but he endeavoured—fortunately quite unsuccessfully, but as part of his Comic Cuts act—to assassinate the character of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who had no part in the decisions on these alterations.
I hope that when the House divides on this order it will bear in mind the comments made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire about his own constituency. Indeed, it may have been fear of losing that constituency that incited him to speak as he did about the sheriff principal who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said, unfortunately has no opportunity to retaliate. Whether he can write in The Scotsman or the Glasgow Herald is not important. He cannot stand up here as we can and give chapter and verse for what he would like to say about the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.
The Boundary Commission's proposals were suggested in 1978 when growth in the Grampian region was not expected. That region has grown and will continue to grow so that by the next general election, not to mention the following one, it will have thrown the Boundary Commission's numbers game completely out of proportion. My constituency of Aberdeenshire, East was nobly represented for 34 years by Lord Boothby. Unfortunately, that constituency name will disappear into Banff and Buchan, and the ancient county of Banff will disappear as a constituentcy, with the loss of a Member of Parliament.
In its deliberations the Boundary Commission should have taken account of the growth of some areas. It seems wrong to take the 1978 figures as the basis for the next general election when it was already obvious that there would be substantial growth in areas such as the Grampian

region. I hope that on the next occasion the commission will be directed to take cognisance of possible growth in areas where the likelihood of such growth is apparent.
In many respects, I welcome the commission's decisions. I especially welcome the fact that a Tory Member will represent the constituency of West Stirlingshire rather than the present incumbent.

Mr. Canavan: There will be no such constituency.

Mr. McQuarrie: A Tory Member would represent that area far better than the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister can assure us that in future the commission will have to take cognisance of possible growth in areas such as the Grampian region, so that we do not again lose not only a Member of Parliament but a whole constituency when the numbers have in fact increased rather than decreased.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The debate has been as much about the lessons to be learnt for the future from the Boundary Commission's work in the past three or four years as about the dissatisfaction of some hon. Members at the way in which the commission reached the decisions now before us.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) said that we had waited a long time for the report. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) pointed out, the Boundary Commission was set up in 1978. I well recall the Labour party conference at Perth in 1980, just after the 1979 general election. My great and good friend Lord Ross of Marnock was speculating as to why he was being offered so many drinks and invited to so many meals by so many people at that conference. I had to explain that a great many of them thought that he was the deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission rather than the honourable Lord Ross, high court judge and former dean of the faculty. Indeed, we tried to cook up a scheme to keep up the pretence for a number of years so that my noble friend might continue to receive the kindness so long denied to him.
We have waited for the report for some time. Some lessons have to be learnt and applied to the next Boundary Commission, whenever that may sit. To correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East—I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South would want me to do this—Lord Wheatley has never at any time been associated with Boundary Commission work. The point the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was making was that if there had been provision in the Boundary Commission procedure to go to the Court of Session, in that situation Lord Wheatley might have been involved in Boundary Commission work. There is no provision for the matter to go the Court of Session, and therefore there was no risk involved. For the sake of the record it is important to point out that Lord Wheatley has never at any time been involved in Boundary Commission work.
One of the problems has been that the Boundary Commission sought to fit the parliamentary constituencies into the local government set-up. No doubt we would all agree that to some extent that was the wrong way to proceed. I am not apportioning blame to anyone but


simply making an observation that I hope will be noted when the next Boundary Commission sits. It is easy to be wise after the event.
When local government was reorganised in 1973 and the new local government boundaries and district and regional councils were established, it was not envisaged that a future parliamentary Boundary Commission would seek to fit into the local government set-up the parliamentary boundaries. If a mistake has been made, that is it.
There is an inherent weakness in the procedure of the Boundary Commission because it does not go to public inquiries to argue the case for its original proposals. In future, when a Boundary Commission sits, if there is a public inquiry to consider objections to its proposals, it should be under an obligation to argue the case for those proposals at the inquiry. What happened was that proposals were put forward by the Boundary Commission, public inquiries were held to consider objections, the report came back from the reporter and the Boundary Commission then considered that report and decided whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that the reporter's findings should be accepted.
Whatever may be said by Conservative Members, my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) made strong and relevant points about what happened at the central region inquiry. There was dissatisfaction about the outcome of that inquiry. The proper procedure would have been for a second public inquiry to he held because the first one produced proposals so radically different from the original proposals of the Boundary Commission that it is inconceivable that the commission could have accepted the amended proposals as being preferable to its original proposals. It is completely unsatisfactory that the Boundary Commission should not be under an obligation to attend a public inquiry and argue the case for its proposals. If there is one lesson we must learn from what has happened over the last three years it is that a Boundary Commission should defend its original proposals at any public inquiry that is held.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire made the relevant point that when, in the case of Stirling university, the university court gave evidence, it argued that the university should be represented by the same Member of Parliament as he who represented the town of Stirling. Never at any time since 1968, when the university was built, has it been represented by the same Member who represented the town. The late Willie Baxter, who used to represent the university with great effect, was succeeded by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, who continued to represent it with great effect. No one could argue that the university was at a disadvantage because it was not represented by the same Member of Parliament as represented the town.
The Boundary Commission should have been at the inquiry to argue that case. I do not want to join in the criticism of Sheriff Principal Taylor, or to make allegations of gerrymandering, but it is difficult to convince the public that the outcome of the inquiry was not wrong. The new Stirling seat may possibly be a Conservative seat, but it is as well to remember that when the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) thought that his constituency would be dicey and that he might not win it, he was fishing around in Stirling to see if there was any possibility of his becoming the Conservative candidate

there. So it is difficult to avoid the feeling that something was going on. However, I am content to leave the matter there.
We are now entering on to a new era in Scottish politics. Many of the constituencies that have been traditional over the years will disappear altogether. Many of us regret that we shall lose parts of areas that we have represented for a number of years. In my own case, it will be the town of Stirling and two thirds of Falkirk, which I have represented for the past 12 years. It is always a wrench when we have to leave friends that we have known for a number of years. However, we must look to the future positively, and do our best to make sure that the constituencies are operable, and I am quite certain that whoever represents them will represent them well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) talked about the names of constituencies. This is an issue on which local people should be consulted. It is incredible that Sheriff Principal Taylor should be prepared to accept the radical alterations to the proposals for the Central region, and yet when a simple proposal was put by my constituency Labour party, that, to avoid confusion, we should not have Falkirk, East and Falkirk, West, but have instead Falkirk, West and a Grangemouth constituency, he decided that it was far too radical. That simple proposition was rejected out of hand, because there happens to be one electoral division—one only—from the town of Falkirk in Falkirk, East, and he argued that that was sufficient to justify the naming of the constituency as Falkirk, East.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove said, the naming of constituencies is not a controversial matter, and the wishes of local people should be accepted. Perhaps we would then get more attractive names for constituencies, instead of the rather stereotyped names that have been produced by the Boundary Commission. I join my right hon. Friend in advising my hon. Friends not to vote against this order tonight. Some of my colleagues may take a different view, but I hope that these constituencies will work well in the future, and I look forward with interest to the months that lie ahead.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I have listened with great care to what all hon. Members have said tonight, both the general and particular points. They have spoken with knowledge and sincerity, particularly about the loss of historic links and historic constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the loss of upper Nithsdale. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnson) referred to the difficulties of distance. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) spoke with great knowledge of North Tayside, as did the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to the proud old county of Berwickshire, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has an interest.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) referred to communities and referred to the concern about the name of the new constituency. That theme was reflected in the contributions of the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing).
The relationship between rules 4 and 5 and the timing of reasons given for provisional recommendations will be matters for Parliament to decide before the next general review by the Boundary Commission. I am not as convinced as the hon. Member for Inverness about the merits of decisions on boundaries being made in smoke-filled rooms full of party professionals.
Several hon. Members referred to the change in the commission's original intention of having 71 seats for Scotland to having 72. That was explained fully by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove. I confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South and for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and to the hon. Member for Dundee, East—[Interruption.]

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can hardly hear the Minister because of the noise emanating from the English Fascist caucus in the corner. Will they leave the Chamber if they wish to talk among themselves?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help.

Mr. Stewart: I am concerned with population trends. I confirm to my hon. Friends that population changes were considered by the commission in several respects.
References were made to Sheriff Principal Taylor. Hon. Members must not fall into the trap of saying that past political service precludes impartiality. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire as well as by the hon. Member for Inverness. The House understands the feelings of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) over his constituency being divided into seven parts. He is a most assiduous constituency Member, as my right hon. and hon. Friends who have to receive his representations will be the first to agree.
The hon. Gentleman accused Sheriff Principal Taylor of political bias. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that in the other inquiry that he conducted for the Fife region he recommended acceptance of the commission's scheme for five seats instead of four as at present, against opposition from all the Conservative associations in Fife.
The final decision is made by the commission, one member of which was appointed by the Lord President and two by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Hon Members have made many points with sincerity and knowledge. Given the independence and impartiality of the boundary commission, the right course is for the House to approve the recommendations without modification.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 9.

Division No. 83]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Blaker, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Body, Richard


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone,)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)





Bowden, Andrew
Heddle, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brinton, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hooson, Tom


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Burden, Sir Frederick
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman


Butcher, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Butler, Hon Adam
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lang, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cope, John
Latham, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan


Corrie, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Costain, Sir Albert
Lee, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Le Marchant, Spencer


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loveridge, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Luce, Richard


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Macfarlane, Neil


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, John


Elliott, Sir William
Mac Kay, John (Argyll)


Emery, Sir Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fell, Sir Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Major, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Marland, Paul


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marlow, Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardner, Sir Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Monro, Sir Hector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam,John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John






Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Parris, Matthew
Stanley, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steen, Anthony


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stevens, Martin


Pawsey, James
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander.
Tapsell, Peter


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Carol Mather and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Stainton, Keith



NOES


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dixon, Donald
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Mr. Russell Johnston and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Denis Canavan.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Royal Hospital, Richmond

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Sir Anthony Royle: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the problem of the Royal hospital in Richmond. The hospital, which has been a community hospital for a long time, has recently come yet again under threat. I have been asked to raise the matter not only by Jeremy Handley, the prospective Conservative candidate for Richmond, who has been doing a lot of work trying to ensure that the hospital is saved, but by Mrs. Freda McNae, the chairman of the friends of the hospital. I have had many approaches from constituents throughout the area asking me to raise the matter in the House, which is why I am taking up the time of the House and which has entailed the arrival of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to answer my points at this late hour.
The history of the hospital is well known locally but not to the House. I have taken a great interest in it for many years—more than 20 years. Many times the hospital has nearly closed. Some years ago the casualty department was shut. Therefore, the hospital has no longer had a casualty unit. Before the change in the organisation and structure of the National Health Service in the area, many people had to travel all the way to Kingston for casualty work instead of being dealt with locally in Richmond.
The Royal hospital is a community hospital and is still valued by the local residents. At one stage it contained 124 in-patient beds, but that facility was gradually eroded by the former area health authority until in 1977 it was phased out altogether. The closure of the wards was intended to be a temporary contingency so that short-term financial savings could be made. When the rehabilitation units were opened a year ago, the then Minister for Health announced that £2½ million had been set aside for the development of a community hospital facility beginning in 1983–84 with completion in 1987. With the possibility of reorganisation, the former area health authority delayed making a formal decision. Now the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton health authority is landed with the problem. They considered demolition. I shall deal with that later.
The statement that followed appeared in a paper that was prepared by the district medical officer, Dr. Hastings Carson, entitled "Service Planning Considerations". It was presented to the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton DHA meeting of 15 November. I shall quote the paragraph that has caused the anxiety:
There is no prospect in a bleak economic climate of the RTR being able to afford the running costs of re-providing in-patient services at the Royal Hospital, Richmond even if the capital were available to renovate the hospital. For this reason it seems sensible to explore the possibility of using part of the site to provide a modern out-patient/day-patient/community health services complex to meet local needs conveniently and to dispose of the remainder of the land on the Kings Road site. The RHA might be willing to advance a capital sum in such circumstances on the understanding that it would be re-paid when the surplus land was sold.
That statement implied that there would be no reinstatement of in-patient beds. If those beds were not be reinstated, patients would have to go to Roehampton or Putney for such a facility. Public transport between Richmond, Roehampton and Putney is bad. It is much too far for visitors, especially old people, to travel to see their friends in hospital. That inability of friends to visit is a

quite crucial aspect of the need for the community hospital to remain in Richmond. The population in Richmond is becoming increasingly elderly. Local people would be desolated if the community hospital no longer existed.
After local consultations, the skilful local chairman of the district health authority, Mrs. Earle, for whom I have nothing but the highest praise, managed to put together an impressive alternative plan. The authority agreed the following proposals. First, there should be no reduction of services provided by the district health authority and, secondly, there should be no demolition of the hospital, or part of it, for at least five years—and only then as a prelude to rebuilding. Mrs. Earle's scheme includes improved maintenance services and an extension for geriatric care.
As was pointed out in the document sent to the regional health authority, and as I have described this evening, much controversy has raged in Richmond and there was reference to the alleged plan for the community hospital. The plans always existed, and the former Minister for Health made a pledge, as I quoted earlier in my speech, when he opened part of the hospital just over a year ago.
The fabric, decor and general condition of the former in-patient accommodation has been allowed to deteriorate alarmingly. The DHA said that those conditions cannot persist and that there is a significant gap in the present day-place provision for the mentally ill, the elderly and the severely mentally ill in its area. There are fragmented clinic services, some at the Royal hospital, others at the Kings Road and the Windham road clinic. The DHA proposed:
It seems sensible and in line with National policies for the priority groups to consider the Royal site in two phases viz Phase I aim to achieve a modern out-patient/day-patient/community health services complex. The old in-patient buildings would be demolished and the Kings Road site sold on commissioning of that complex (proceeds going towards the cost of that development). Feasibility studies would then be made for a possible Community beds component on the site, as Phase 2.
Money must be provided to carry out the plan put forward by the district health authority. The former Minister's pledge to the region only a year ago can be carried out, and to put forward the idea that a large capital sum can be spent and then to say a year later "The capital can be spent, but we do not have the revenue to run the hospital" is not good enough.
I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me tonight that the district can carry out the scheme, because the region will be given the authority to provide the money for it. If my hon. Friend can assure me that the hospital will remain a community hospital and will be helped to thrive, it will give much encouragement to all those who are interested in health care in my constituency.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) for raising this important subject. For a long time he has taken a keen interest in such matters, and I recognise that there is much local uncertainty about the future of the Royal hospital. Therefore, I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify the position.
My hon. Friend referred to various undertakings to provide a community hospital of about 70 beds on the Royal Richmond site, which I know many of his constituents which to see. This proposal was originally put


forward in 1979, as my hon. Friend knows by a working party set up by the former Kingston and Richmond area health authority and the community health council to consider the future role of the Royal hospital after outpatient services were withdrawn from the Royal on completion of the new surgical block at Kingston hospital in 1977.
The working party's proposal for a community hospital of 45 geriatric and 25 post-operative and general practitioner beds was accepted by the area health authority and an outline scheme submitted to the South-West Thames regional health authority in 1980 for capital funding. That was, as my hon. Friend said accepted by the region and given a place in the forward capital programme at an estimated capital cost then of £2·75 million. Although in 1980 the Kingston and Richmond area health authority faced severe financial constraints and could not at that stage meet the additional revenue costs of a new community hospital, it was hoped that the necessary revenue could be found by the mid-1980s.
On that basis, a starting date of 1984 for the Royal hospital development was agreed with the aim of completing this by 1986–87. A project team was formed to undertake the necessary planning work. However, it became increasingly clear that the former Kingston and Richmond area health authority had no real prospect in the foreseeable future of meeting the additional revenue consequences from within existing allocations, although the community hospital remained a priority development.
As a result, the proposed development of the Royal hospital—always dependent on the health authority's assurance of revenue funding—was dropped from the region's capital programme, which was in any case overcommitted with major schemes for which revenue funding was assured. I stress that no detailed proposals for building a 70-bed community hospital, other than the outline scheme prepared by the working party in 1979, were ever formally submitted to either the region or my Department for approval as they would need to be. Had that happened, my Department would have been bound to question the revenue assumptions.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we must take every step to ensure that no more new hospital developments have to be mothballed because of lack of revenue.

Sir Anthony Royle: My hon. Friend said that this proposal was not put to his Department or the region. Was I wrong when I said that the Minister's predecessor made that statement when he opened the hospital?

Mr. Finsberg: We have no record of his ever having said that or having written to my hon. Friend. I suggest that my hon. Friend talks to the Minister for Consumer Affairs to see what he thinks he said. I took care to find out what assurances had been given.
In view of the problem we found in some areas where authorities experienced difficulty in opening new hospitals because they had no revenue available, it seemed only sensible to err on the side of caution.
At present, health authorities are permitted to invite tenders and let contracts for new hospital developments only where they can demonstrate that the scheme will reduce revenue spending, or not entail any additional recurring revenue commitment, or where the extra revenue requirements of a scheme that will call for additional resources can be met from closures already agreed.
Following reorganisation last April, as my hon. Friend has said, responsibility for the Royal hospital passed to the new Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton health authority. No revenue funds were specifically transferred to Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton by its predecessor authority to meet the additional costs of a new 70-bed community hospital, and although this remained a priority development the new authority reluctantly reached a similar conclusion about the lack of funds in the foreseeable future to support the scheme, and this remains the position.
If I have spoken at length on these earlier plans for the Royal hospital rather than its likely future role—which is the subject of this debate—it is because I wanted to stress the provisional status of these plans and explain why the scheme was dropped from the region's capital programme. I think such an explanation was called for.
I come to the current plans for the Royal hospital which the authority has drawn up. My hon. Friend referred to the demolition of the existing buildings on the Royal hospital site. I know that much concern has been expressed in his constituency that the present hospital, which provides much needed out-patient and day-patient services, would be demolished without provision for any replacement. Let me assure my hon. Friend that that is certainly not the case.
A wide range of out-patient clinic services, day places for the mentally ill and community health services are provided at this busy and much loved hospital; these will need to continue. Indeed, given the shortfall in day places for the mentally ill and elderly severely mentally infirm in the district there is a case for expanding these facilities at the Royal. At the same time, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is undeniable that the existing buildings are in a poor state and the former in-patient accommodation, closed about five years ago has deteriorated alarmingly. The health authority has there fore considered the future role of the Royal hospital in two phases. The aim under the first phase is to achieve a modern out-patient, day-patient and community health services complex on the site, as my hon. Friend said.
The old in-patient buildings would be demolished and, at the very least, the existing level of out-patient and psychiatric day-hospital facilities reprovided in a more modern complex. The capital cost of rebuilding the Royal hospital along these lines has been provisionally estimated at £3·3 million. Feasibility studies would then explore the potential for a possible community bed component on the Royal hospital site, as phase 2 of the development. This would of course, as my hon. Friend will understand, depend on the health authority finding the necessary revenue funding, although, as my hon. Friend knows, this is unlikely in the immediate future.
The South-West Thames region has agreed to a joint feasibility study with the district health authority and I understand the aim is to complete this by 1984–85. In the meantime, the present level of services at the Royal hospital is expected to continue. Once the feasibility study has been completed, I hope an early start can be made on this development and the detailed plans processed as quickly as possible.
I should point out that the capital programme for South-West Thames is already heavily overcommitted both in the short and medium term and the phased reconstruction of the Royal hospital, Richmond, is only one of many competing bids from districts as yet unprogrammed. At


present Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton already has approval for a £3 million capital development starting in 1983–84—the Tudor Lodge health centre—and other bids from this district alone currently total about £8·2 million, including £3·3 million for the Royal hospital. It will be clear to the House that some difficult choices about priorities will need to be made both by districts and the region in the months ahead.
I cannot give the assurance that my hon. Friend would like—a firm undertaking that the phased reconstruction of the Royal hospital will be included in the capital programme at a given date—as this is a matter for the regional health authority to determine, bearing in mind the needs of the region as a whole. I can give him a firm undertaking, however, that demolition will not take place until plans have been agreed for replacement facilities. I recognise the pressures on the region's capital programme and my hon. and learned Friend the Minster for Health will be discussing some of these problems with the chairman of the South-West Thames RHA when he meets him next week. I shall ensure that a copy of Hansard is sent to him

in advance of that meeting so that he can read what my hon. Friend said when he expressed the genuine and real concern of his constituents.
I know, from the many years that my hon. Friend has represented Richmond, how much he has cared for those whom he has served. I know how much he has tried permanently to put their interests at the forefront of all his activities, unlike one or two others who claim to represent the people of Richmond but who come and go in raising pavement issues for political purposes. My hon. Friend has never sought to do that. I know that he will not mind if I make him somewhat embarrassed by saying that I know that the House will be sorry not to see him in his place when the new Parliament sits. That can be said even more so on behalf of his constituents, who have been so superbly served by him for a long time.
All that my hon. Friend has said will be passed on to the chairman of the district health authority and the chairman of the region as well as to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. I hope that I have been able in some small way to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he sought.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.